More gun control for Philly

Just what I was talking about before. Even though the courts have said we can own guns these liberal politicans will use our tax money to fight to keep these laws on the books knowing they will lose. WHY= because when the gun owners go broke getting them repealed the anti gunners will have won. Those thinking about OBAMA for president should be aware that for eight years he was on the board of directors of the JOYCE FOUNDATION which is one of the best funded Anti Gun groups around. They give millions of dollars each year to gun control causes to strip you of your gun ownership. His slogan (change you can believe in) means he will change his position to suit the politics of the moment.  

Not to endorse this law, but. How does a requirement to report a stolen handgun, in ANY way, PREVENT you from owning one?

Actually, I believe this went into law back in April through a court ruling.  It sounds like it is up to municipalities to set a timeline when they will begin to enforce the ruling. 

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

The law is intended to have recourse against those "law abiding" citizens

How do you PUNISH the criminal, without some methodology for IDENTIFYING them?

As you have said.  Those law abiding citizens are criminals and should be charges as such.  I support charging anyone who buys firearms with the intent to sell them on the streets to known criminals.

It seems some simple undercover work would weed out the big offenders  pretty quickly with all of the paperwork that is already required to purchase handguns. 
 
Again, I feel because the justice system is broke, more restrictions are wanted to be placed on legal ownership.

I read somewhere a while back that there were provisions within the law to take this into account.  That said, it sure made it sound like you better know your inventory and check it when you get back...

OTH, DP and S-10 are right on this.
I just got back from a week in Philly. I did not check my gun cabinet when I got back. If I had been broken into, I would be the one having to take the burden to prove I was innocent. Provisions need to be left out as well as this birdbrains idea for a law! I saw him during an interview after the announcement of the Supreme Court decision. He was ****ed off! He said he was going to do what he could to  battle the verdict.  The sad part is too many people in the city of Brotherly Love agree with him. It is going to be an uphill struggle to maintain our rights!

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

dpms,

I'm just stating what the thinking is behind the law. I didn't say it was SOUND thinking. The guy who is breaking law 1, isn't going to worry about breaking law 2 ( although you could at least get him for that ).

Your answer to my question ( How would it prevent you from owning a firearm? ), is an indication that the law will probabley hold up though.

 
It will come down to a court of law defining "reasonable" restriction and this is why there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands of lawsuits in the coming years trying to define "reasonable."  I think the Feds. are going to leave it up to the states to define this in their own courts and they will remain hands off from this point on.  The battle is only beginning. 
 
Is one handgun a month reasonable?
Is a limit on long gun purchases per month/week/day reasonable?
Are stolen gun reporting laws/time limits reasonable?
Are restrictions on "assault style" weapons reasonable?
 
The list is seemingly endless. 

Spoon--I doubt the law will survive a court challenge. The citys D.A. has already said all five laws they passed are unconstitutional and refuses to prosecute them. Must be a bit of unrest in the ranks.

I didn't know that the Philly DA superseded the supreme court, interesting. It's not up to HIM to decide, determine, or rule on the constitutionality of ANY law.

With the money they are going to waste fighting it, why don't they take the money and put a few more cops on the street?

ORIGINAL: CATMAN610

This law seems to be about accountability,,,your gun, your responsible for it, if it gets stolen, report it.
No ones rights are being taken away. And I would bet anyone here has a gun stolen,,they are going to report it right away anyhow. Don't make something out of nothing.

 
This law makes us responsible for the actions of others that illegally stole property from our house or car and used that property to commit a crime. 
 
Take the bad gun out of the picture for a second at take a long look at the above statement.  If, after looking at the above statement and studying it really hard you still feel like this is a good idea, you are supporting moving the burden of punishment from the criminals to those the criminals violated. 
 
Substitute your car or a knive or a bat for the bad gun.  Is this still a good idea.  What is the difference and why are you okay with singling out my guns.

(I'am in the level headed majority) That may be your own opinion.  Over the years some of the most restrictive laws ever proposed (not all gun laws) were prefaced with the words "If this law even saves one life it's worth it". If we were reduced to only doing things with no chance of accident or injury we couldn't make it from the bed to the toilet. By your definition then we should ban all guns, along with knives, ball bats, gasoline, rope, etc.

ORIGINAL: CATMAN610

Let me get this straight,,you want it to be your option to report a stolen
gun, or set your own timetable to do so?

  
 
Here is the straight answer to your question.  I am against any law that turns me into a criminal because of the actions of others.

I didn't say that about everything,,I said this law,,I never said It would be ok to ban everything.
 
Levelheaded means being capable of seeing 2 sides.

What you have to look at, is the number of "stolen" handguns used in the commision of a crime, VS the number that were not REPORTED "stolen" until AFTER the fact ( the commision of the crime ). The you have to look at whether said handgun was stolen specifically TO commit the crime, and the time periood between the two. If a handgun stolen friday, is used in a crime on sunday, it is "reasonable" to believe that the OWNER simply was not aware of the theft. However, say you purchase a gun today, it is used in a crime a year from now, but not identified as such for two years. If you STILL hadn't reported it stolen ( at least a year after the fact ), then questions arise. Was it really stolen, or are you claiming that, now that it has been connected to a crime. Did YOU commit the crime, or did you knowingly buy a gun FOR the actor, who was not qualified to purchase it himself? That could be difficult to pove EITHER way, and if the latter is the case, then the consequences ( punishment ) for failure to report are in-consequential. The ONLY ones placed in significant increased jeopardy, are those INNOCENT VICTIMS of an actual theft.
 
I don't know exactly HOW you deal with the issue of "straw purchases", but this law would NOT do so effectively.
 
Another issue Cat,
 
Is that the city cannot legally pass, or impose gun control laws.  STATE law ( rightfully so ) prohibits this. Any gun regulations must for the most part, be standard within the state, and to some degree nationally. For them to be set on a municipal level, makes it difficult, if not impossible even for those who FULLY INTEND to be within the law, to do so. One could theoretically be "legal", the NOT "legal", and the "legal" again on a two hour drive. Take driving as an example. Each municipality, CAN set it's own speed limits, BUT the law regarding exceeding the posted speed limit remains the same, state wide. They can pass parking ordinances, but laws regarding parking in front of a hydrant, are statewide. How confusing, and anarchic would it be, if in one town (or state) a red octagonal sign meant stop, in another it meant no parking, and in another it meant no u-turn. I think you get my point. Consistancy of the law, is vital to those who wish to follow the law.