Council passes controversial bill on stolen guns

[ValhallaChaser]

Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine.

The 6-1 vote, with two abstentions, sets up a final vote likely next week, which would send the legislation to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for his signature or veto, and then potentially to the courts, where similar measures have been challenged.

"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter. "This is what's right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that's fine ... We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable."

The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a "false cure" that would be "particularly cruel" to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.
The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a "false cure" that would be "particularly cruel" to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.

"This legislation will not strike a blow to straw purchasers," he said. "This ordinance will not be enforced, no loopholes will be closed and no lives will be saved, because no municipality can legally regulate firearms of any kind, at any time, for any reason."

Council's vote is a win for groups engaged in a statewide push to get local rules for reporting lost and stolen guns. The state House rejected a statewide bill in April.

Advocates appearing before council today argued that people called straw purchasers frequently buy guns, then sell them to criminals who could not pass the required background checks. When the guns are used in crimes and traced back to the straw purchaser, he or she just claims the weapon was lost or stolen. Unless that can be disproved, the straw purchaser is off the hook.

"It's a loophole that allows illegal gun traffickers to simply state that a weapon was stolen," said Councilman William Peduto, one of three authors of the bill along with Council President Doug Shields and Councilman Bruce Kraus.



"To me the question is wide open" on whether such rules are allowed, said Mr. Shields. "This is where you go in and you make your arguments." More at the link

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



I don't think I agree with this. What I DO think is that the CRIMINALS need to get really stiff penalties if they use a gun in the commission of a crime. The courts are far too lenient on the criminals.

[DonP]

1. "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne"

Just Wow! Did this person ever take any kind of oath of office?

I wonder how she feels about other constitutional issues she disagrees with. It sounds like she's a graduate of the Lester Maddox School of Charm and Constititional Law.

[riqster]

2. ""Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter."

Fuck that fucking idiot. Send her to Russia, or better yet Bush's ranch in Crawford. You know, where other un-American assholes share her contempt for the rule of law.

:rant:

[ValhallaChaser]

3. You DID hear that...

Bush is moving to Dallas, didn't you ?? :banghead:

[riqster]

4. Yeah, but in Dallas, she'd be exposed to all those icky pro-constitution types

Horribly uncomfortable for her, don'tcha know.

[amdezurik]

6. yeah, imagine reporting a crime in a timely

fashion so you can't use it as an excuse to not be charged with a crime you just commited...

[riqster]

7. Or imagine a snowbird whose P-Burgh house is burgled while they're gone for the winter

...and a gun that the householder doesn't even know was stolen yet was used in a crime. Drive that paddy waqon from PA right down to Wherethehell Beach, FL and throw 'em in a paddy wagon! Make sure to get their checkbook and credit cards too, of course. That way, we can take the fines while they're locked up.

"The constitution's just a goddamned piece of paper" (G.W. Bush)

[iverglas]

17. gosh, imagine leaving guns lying around in empty houses

for months on end and essentially not giving a shit who gets hold of them and whom they kill with them or what other crimes they use them to commit.

Nope. Having a hard time imagining that myself. I hear tell there are people who do it, though.

[Lex1775]

14. Do you think she noticed the irony...

in saying screw the supreme law of the land, and then expecting people to obey the law that she wants to enact?

[riqster]

16. Probably not.

Like Bush, she's right, and her laws are bigger than anyone else's because of that.

[amdezurik]

5. but think of the JOBS!

this would cost the livelihood of illegal gun dealers dammit! It might hold them resposible for their actions!

[Ian David]

8. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't straw-purchasers criminals? n/t

[ValhallaChaser]

9. Yes, they ARE

and should be punished accordingly.

[Ian David]

10. So, then why is this law controversial? n/t

[DonP]

11. Because it's another stupid and unenforceable "feel good" law ...

that lets politicians claim a victory over gangs and their gun violence for the next election.

How do you figure the police or the prosecuting attorney will prove when the gun was actually stolen?

As it is any FFL is required to report any pruchase of more than 2 or 3 guns at a time, above and beyond the regular NICS check. I bought two used Model 60 Marlin .22's that were a good deal at $65 each and had to wait a couple of extra days for clearance and got a call from the local police to ask what I was buyng them for.

If your car is stolen from the airport parkling lot when you're out of town and used for an armed robbery, should you be subect to prosecution for not reporting it in a "timely" manner?

This is really a pointless discussion anyway, since the PA constitution is pre-emptive and does not allow any city or town to have a gun law more stringent than those in the state constitution. Philadelphia tried something similar a month or so ago and even the Philly DA said the law was unconstitutional. Mayor Nutter threw a hissy fit on camera, but the law was struck down anyway. So will this one.

[ValhallaChaser]

12. Goota LOVE

pre-emption laws....... Duluth, MN lost their fight on banning guns in their city because of pre-emption laws.

[pipoman]

23. I do

like preemption laws. The old "ignorance of the law..." makes it necessary to make it reasonable for people to know the law. Without preemption a state becomes a patchwork of legal traps. An example would be that in most of my state (which is over 95% rural) it is perfectly legal (in fact considered practical if you are a rural resident) to keep a long gun in your vehicle. Prior to adoption of preemption a small handful of counties had ordinances against this, some requiring the gun to be out of site, some requiring it be out of site and locked up, and at least one requiring it to be in plain sight,unloaded, and with a trigger lock. It was confusing. Even the State Police were known to make errors in enforcement. Upon passage of preemption these more urban counties which had these types of ordinances were still allowed to maintain a prohibition against long guns in vehicles but the counties now are uniform and the statute is part of state law.

[HillWilliam]

13. "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne"

"It's just a goddam piece of paper" says the resident :banghead:

Y'know, Ms Payne, it's one thing to have your head up your arse. It's quite another to admire the view.

And what makes you think I wouldn't call my sheriff's office (who don't have the serial numbers and don't want them) and my insurance company (who do have the serial numbers and can cut a check for the replacements)? I'm a big boy and don't need a law to compel me to do the correct thing. It's not like I have a large collection, but they're mine and I value them. I'm not made of money, so I can't run out and replace them. Hell, right now I couldn't afford to replace ONE.

Common sense says (1) I wouldn't want any subsequent crime coming back on me and (2) I can't collect on insurance until a report is made, an investigation done, and the report is turned over to the insurance company.

This seems to be legislation for the sake of legislation; ill-thought-out and irritating.

[aikoaiko]

15. Unfortunately, this law also punishes innocent vicitms of theft who didn't know they were victims

and people who prefer not to get involved with the police for whatever reason.

I get it, its a creative way to thump the straw purchasers, but it also hurts other people and for that I am opposed to it.

[iverglas]

18. you and a bunch of other people really need to learn some law

before opening your yaps.

Criminal law is very seldom of the strict liability variety. If a defence of ignorance of fact is not available, that is strict liability, and I very much doubt that this would be the case in this instance.

Mind you, just saying "but your honour, I didn't knoooow" might not be a really credible defence in all cases ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Canadian Law?

[iverglas]

21. like I wuz saying

If you knew some law, you wouldn't ask moronic questions like that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. So you are an expert on United States Federal and State Law???

[iverglas]

32. you have apparently managed to miss post 26

Yes, it seems I am.

[aikoaiko]

20. Sure, my legalese is not as precise as that which comes from your yap (or wherever it comes from).

but if this law is intended to target straw purchasers (criminal behavior), but also punishes those who did not straw purchase then its not a very good law.

No where did I suggest ignorance was an affirmative defense. Did some psychos come upon you and you hallucinate that? What I said was ignorance of being a victim of crime should be a crime in the first place.

Now back to letting your yap sphincter spew.

[iverglas]

22. if the dog hadn't stopped ...

if this law is intended to target straw purchasers (criminal behavior), but also punishes those who did not straw purchase then its not a very good law.

You'll be wanting that in the conditional:

if this law WERE intended to target straw purchasers (criminal behavior), but also PUNISHED those who did not straw purchase then it WOULD NOT BE a very good law.

Since there is no evidence that it would also punish anyone other than someone who knowingly did what it prohibits, there's nothing to support your premise and your statement is pointless.

Law of the criminal variety ordinarily requires INTENT, and intent requires KNOWLEDGE. Sometimes negligence is sufficient for the "guilty mind" (mens rea) aspect of a criminal law. Instances where the act alone (actus reus) is sufficient to found a finding of guilt, and no defence of ignorance of fact is available, are rare to the point that you would be hard pressed to think of an example, I am sure.

Why you or anyone else would imagine or suggest or state that this would be one of those instances, well, who knows?

[aikoaiko]

25. True, we don't have the text of the law to critique, but we do have this article.

From the article:
"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter."

This makes me worry about the law. As you say, "Law of the criminal variety ordinarily requires INTENT, and intent requires KNOWLEDGE. Sometimes negligence is sufficient for the "guilty mind" (mens rea) aspect of a criminal law.", but it ordinarily requires that law be constitutional and there is evidence that its supporters disaggree.

From the article:
"Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine."

Again, this makes me worry because it was not summarized as ""Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours of learning of its stolen status or potentially face a $500 fine."

Perhaps the law is written better than described in the article, but I don't think we should imagine aspects of the law not reported upon.

[iverglas]

26. the disingenuousness overfloweth

From the article:
"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter."

This makes me worry about the law. As you say, "Law of the criminal variety ordinarily requires INTENT, and intent requires KNOWLEDGE. Sometimes negligence is sufficient for the "guilty mind" (mens rea) aspect of a criminal law.", but it ordinarily requires that law be constitutional and there is evidence that its supporters disaggree.

You know perfectly well that the constitutional issue being raised is compliance with the second amendment.

I had intended to comment on the conflation going on in this thread in this regard, so thank you for reminding me.

There appear to be two issues:

(1) Whether a municipal council has the constitutional authority (i.e. as a matter of power to legislate in relation to a particular matter) to regulate any aspect of firearms possession.

(2) Whether the regulation in question meets other requirements that criminal-type law must meet, e.g. due process (strict liability will seldom meet that standard).

Here, this should help Dave out too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
(with wiki's usual glaring spelling and grammar mistakes, and my emphases)

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

It is used either in regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to maximise the deterrent value of the offence. ...

... United States

As a jurisdiction with due process, the United States makes only the most minor crimes or infractions subject to strict liability. One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea. Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.

... Canada

Since the 1978, Canadian criminal law has recognized a distinction between offences of "strict" and "absolute" liability. In R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie the Supreme Court of Canada created a two-tiered system of liability for regulatory offences. Under this system, the Crown would continue to be relived from proving the mens rea of the offence. However, offences of strict liability would grant the accused a defence of due diligence – which would continue to be denied in cases of absolute liability. Further, in the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary, the Court held that all regulatory offences would be presumed to bear strict liability.

Following the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, this distinction was upheld in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act. The Supreme Court further held that the inclusion of the possibility of imprisonment − no matter how remote − in an offence of absolute liability violated the accused's Section 7 right to liberty.

When will you people just acknowledge that I know what I'm talking about??

[pipoman]

29. It seems to me there are 2 seperate issues in the first

(1) Whether a municipal council has the constitutional authority (i.e. as a matter of power to legislate in relation to a particular matter) to regulate any aspect of firearms possession.

Councilwoman Tonya Payne seems to be contemplating the Constitutional issue, which I believe, the circumstances of this issue is so far removed from any supreme court firearms/2nd Amendment decision that it is irrelevant.

and

Councilman Ricky Burgess who seems to be contemplating state code. "This ordinance will not be enforced, no loopholes will be closed and no lives will be saved, because no municipality can legally regulate firearms of any kind, at any time, for any reason." I don't believe his position has anything to do with Constitutional law.

His statement is almost verbatim language used in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §6120.

(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

I can see that others may believe that this particular ordinance may fall outside of 6120. It may be interesting to see how the state courts rule on this one.

[aikoaiko]

31. I can't really tell which aspect of the constution (state or fed) the councilwoman is discounting

Even if it is merely the 2nd or the state's RKBA, her comment is still repulsive.

I suppose we are both speculating about the actual law and it would help to see the actual text.

[pipoman]

24. Correct me if I am wrong

but this appears to be a civil violation and not criminal. A necessary aspect of criminal prosecution is criminal intent. If criminal intent could be established in these cases they could be prosecuted under existing criminal law. Civil = lower burden of proof.

Do most preemption laws include civil penalties or are they only applied to criminal ordinances?

[iverglas]

27. now I'm confused

this appears to be a civil violation and not criminal

I'm not familiar with "civil violations". Will the city be suing offenders? What is a "civil penalty"?

Regulatory offence, maybe? Yup. Still requiring intent, unless it meets the requirements for the lower strict liability standard to apply.


If criminal intent could be established in these cases they could be prosecuted under existing criminal law.

What existing criminal law governs failure to report the theft of a firearm?


html fixed

[pipoman]

28. Thanks

for the fist part,I am sure you are right.

As for the second part, it is their stated objective to be able to effectively punish suspected straw purchasers. This isn't framed as an effort to punish people who simply didn't realize that their property had been stolen. So if criminal intent to commit straw purchase/providing a firearm to a person who is prohibited could be established, it would stand to reason they would charge them criminally with these more severe crimes.