City, Brady Center seek to end NRA lawsuit over reporting ordinance

[Lujack]

It makes sense to report if your gun is stolen. If someone else uses it to commit a crime, your stolen gun report is your alibi. Otherwise, you can get charged.

HOWEVER fining someone who fails to file one? That’s stupid. What’s next? Fining someone for failure to breathe? Dead people can vote in some places, but how will they pay fines?

If you don’t fine someone, there’s no incentive and they won’t do it. People are lazy; even if its a paper fine that’s never used it needs to be there or the report won’t be made.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

And that accomplishes exactly what? If there is no transfer or registration of firearms required in his state, then it doesn’t matter how he got the gun.

I believe there are transfer regulations in Pittsburgh.

If there is transfer or registration of firearms, then the person is already guilty under EXISTING laws.

Not if the person claims he or she FOUND the gun.

If the person honestly didn’t know that his gun is missing, then the law accomplishes nothing. If the person knew that the gun was missing but failed to report it, them he would be required to give up his 5th amendment rights in order to admit it.

You are repeating a mis-interpretation of the law. People are asked everyday if they violated a law. They either answer or they do not. This ordinance does not present a new challenge to constitutional rights. Its like a cop asking a person if they were speeding.

Again, the law accomplishes nothing that isn’t already addressed by existing laws or which violates a person’s rights.

The city chief of police seems to disagree.

The only thing that this law will do is further victimize those who were already a victim of crime and had their gun stolen.

Like citing a person for illegal fireworks when his or her house burns down? The city saw a need and tried to meet it. If you disagree with the need for the law, that’s your option. However, your legal objections and interpretations are off base.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I believe there are transfer regulations in Pittsburgh.

Considering that I transfer firearms in PA for a living, I would say that I am uniquely qualified to talk about this topic and there are transfer requirements of handguns in Pittsburgh but no transfer requirements of rifles or shotguns.

Not if the person claims he or she FOUND the gun.

But if the person claimed that he found it and the other person didn’t report the loss, how does going after the owner going to do anything? The owner still may not have known that it was missing.

You are repeating a mis-interpretation of the law. People are asked everyday if they violated a law. They either answer or they do not. This ordinance does not present a new challenge to constitutional rights. Its like a cop asking a person if they were speeding.

Other violations of the law can be independently confirmed if they were violated. How can you independently confirmed that a gun owner KNEW that his gun was taken but did not report it?

The city chief of police seems to disagree.

That doesn’t say much. In fact, it says more against the law than for it. Both Philly and Pittsburgh have had numerous gun laws overturned because they violated either the PA or the US Constitution. This one appears to be following in those footsteps.

Like citing a person for illegal fireworks when his or her house burns down?

Again, you are giving examples of offenses which can be independently confirmed – which is NOT the case with this law.

The city saw a need and tried to meet it.

The city is unable to enforce existing laws so it passes new ones which become a further burden against honest gun owners but do nothing to address the actual problem because the ones who commit the crime will not obey the laws (that is why they are criminals – hint, hint) and THEY are the ones who are responsible for the problem.

If you disagree with the need for the law, that’s your option.

And that is exactly what I am doing.

However, your legal objections and interpretations are off base.

On the contrary. My legal objections and interpretations are right on the mark. This law does nothing that is not already covered by existing laws and there is no way to enforce it without requiring someone to give up their fifth amendment rights – which makes it unconstitutional … and you have yet to provide an example to show otherwise.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

My legal objections and interpretations are right on the mark. This law does nothing that is not already covered by existing laws and there is no way to enforce it without requiring someone to give up their fifth amendment rights – which makes it unconstitutional … and you have yet to provide an example to show otherwise.

I disagree. And I cited the Marijuana Tax Act. Courts have found that such a tax law does not violate the 5th amendment so a stolen gun reporting ordinance surely does not. Reporting that a gun has been stolen (which is all the law requires) is not admitting any crime. You should note that this allegation as to the fifth amendment has not been used to challenge the law in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, to my knowledge. If it happened in Philly, it did not work.

Moreover, the law in Philadelphia has just been upheld by the appellate court. So the Pittsburgh law seems to pass muster under state law and federal law.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I disagree. And I cited the Marijuana Tax Act. Courts have found that such a tax law does not violate the 5th amendment so a stolen gun reporting ordinance surely does not.

I have a newsflash for you, in 1969, the case of Leary v. United States found the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 to be unconstitutional since it DID violated the Fifth Amendment. Just google “Leary v. United States”. Unfortunately, for 32 years the government was in VIOLATION of the highest law of the land.

Reporting that a gun has been stolen (which is all the law requires) is not admitting any crime.

Then why have a law for it in the first place?

You should note that this allegation as to the fifth amendment has not been used to challenge the law in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, to my knowledge. If it happened in Philly, it did not work.

Not yet but it will be. Note that it took THIRTY-TWO YEARS to overturn the Marijuana Tax Act.

Moreover, the law in Philadelphia has just been upheld by the appellate court. So the Pittsburgh law seems to pass muster under state law and federal law.

It hasn’t passed muster under federal challenges YET. As I just said, it sometimes takes a long to overturn an unjust law and remember that something which violates the highest law of the land is also ILLEGAL!

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

This is a silly dialogue. There is no legal violation which must be confessed to in order to report a gun stolen. Therefore, there is no self-incrimination. In many jurisdictions, it is a criminal offense not to report a known felony.

You can have the last word but you have no supportable legal theory which would result in the law being overthrown. “I don’t like it” is not enough.

 

[BobCatholic]

If you don’t fine someone, there’s no incentive and they won’t do it. People are lazy; even if its a paper fine that’s never used it needs to be there or the report won’t be made.

Avoiding being falsely accused of a gun crime is PLENTY of incentive to report a guns as lost/stolen if it is so.

By requiring a fine, this will simply encourage people to file needless reports.

Oops! I can’t find my gun…I saw it ten minutes ago…better call the police and report it stolen just in case.

This law won’t do anything about gun crime. It is unnecessary and only exists to raise revenue.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is a silly dialogue.

I’m glad that you are finally beginning to see that.

There is no legal violation which must be confessed to in order to report a gun stolen. Therefore, there is no self-incrimination.

There is if failure to do so becomes a crime and the ONLY way to determine that the crime was committed would be by the admission of the person who committed it. That’s self-incrimination and prohibitted by the fifth amendment of the US Constitution – the HIGHEST law of this land.

In many jurisdictions, it is a criminal offense not to report a known felony.

References please.

you have no supportable legal theory which would result in the law being overthrown. “I don’t like it” is not enough.

Actually I have. By your own admission, it is very similar to the Marihuana Tax Act and that WAS overturned because it was unconstitutional.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

There is if failure to do so becomes a crime and the ONLY way to determine that the crime was committed would be by the admission of the person who committed it.

Maybe the person could never be guilty if they denied awarenss of the loss. So there would never be a conviction. You mis-read the application of the 5th amendment

References please.

The reporting statute right next door in Ohio:

“(A) No person, knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, shall knowingly fail to report such information to law enforcement authorities.”
psychology.ohio.gov/oac/292122/2921_22.htm

Actually I have. By your own admission, it is very similar to the Marihuana Tax Act and that WAS overturned because it was unconstitutional.

Somehow, I think that guns are legal and marijuana is not. That’s a BIG difference in incriminating yourself in a crime.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Maybe the person could never be guilty if they denied awarenss of the loss. So there would never be a conviction.

And what is the point of having a law that can not be enforced?

You mis-read the application of the 5th amendment

No I didn’t and given the fact that the US Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the Marihuana Tax Act (which you kept citing to prove your point) because it violated the fifth amendment of the US Constitution; is a good indication that I read & understood it correctly.

The reporting statute right next door in Ohio:

“(A) No person, knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, shall knowingly fail to report such information to law enforcement authorities.”
psychology.ohio.gov/oac/292122/2921_22.htm

This applies to health care providers who come in contact with physical evidence that crimes were committed. To IMPLY that this is the same thing as what is being proposed in Pittsburgh (where the ONLY way to determine it would be for the person to self-incriminate themselves) is rather disingenuous on your part.

Somehow, I think that guns are legal and marijuana is not. That’s a BIG difference in incriminating yourself in a crime.

That proves MY point even further. Why should you be charged with a crime if you failed to report the loss of a legal possession of your’s within a given time period?

 

[SamH]

And what is the point of having a law that can not be enforced?

I think you’ve reached the mountain top.

So politicians can claim they “did something” about gun violence without actually doing anything but antagonize law abiding citizens. The “assault weapons ban” was another such law. I watched in disgust as one lawmaker admitted the law would do nothing to deter crime but he felt “they had to send a strong message about gun violence”. Once again they fail to realize that criminals don’t follow the law.

Why not try putting law breakers in prison? It appears to work were its actually been done.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I think you’ve reached the mountain top.

So politicians can claim they “did something” about gun violence without actually doing anything but antagonize law abiding citizens. The “assault weapons ban” was another such law. I watched in disgust as one lawmaker admitted the law would do nothing to deter crime but he felt “they had to send a strong message about gun violence”. Once again they fail to realize that criminals don’t follow the law.

Why not try putting law breakers in prison? It appears to work were its actually been done.

It’s always easier to go after folks who obey the law than those who don’t. Liberals seem to enjoy creating new laws rather than enforcing the old ones.