February 2010 – Page 7 – Shall Not Be Questioned

CNN Covering L&S Controversy in Pennsylvania

Transcript here, and here’s the relevant expert, with the part I’d like to comment on bolded at the end:

Right now, there’s a major fight going on at the local level over a new law that’s intended to keep guns out of criminal hands. Critics though say it’s just another case of legislating against the legal and responsible gun owners. Ed Lavandera is on the gun trail for us this morning.

It’s a very emotional issue, Ed.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely, Kiran. You know, we spent the last two mornings talking about how guns are illegally trafficked across the country and out of the country. I wanted to take a look this time at a possible solution. And so we to Pennsylvania where it is becoming a very controversial issue.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JANA FINDER, CEASEFIRE PA: So you get tired of hearing people complain.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Jana Finder says not enough is being done to keep illegally trafficked guns off Pennsylvania’s streets. This might be the heart of northeastern gun country.

FINDER: To report their handguns when they’re lost or stolen to the police.

LAVANDERA: But Finder, along with a group called Ceasefire PA has launched a grassroots campaign to get local governments to sign on to what’s become a highly controversial law called “Lost and Stolen Ordinances.” Supporters of gun rights hate it. The ordinances require gun owners to report if their weapons have been lost or stolen usually within 24 hours.

FINDER: There is very strong support for lost concerns because they have told us that this kind of requirement would give them another investigative tool to help crack down and reduce the numbers of illegal handguns in our streets.

LAVANDERA: Finder says these laws target the number one source of guns for criminals, people with clean records who buy guns then supply them to street criminals, the so-called straw purchasers.

(on camera): The battle over straw purchase ordinance is being waged across small towns all over Pennsylvania in city council chambers like this one here in Duquesne.

(voice-over): Duquesne’s city council was one of the latest to get behind it. So far 25 Pennsylvania cities have adopted the ordinance.

MAYOR PHIL KRIVACEK, DUQUESNE, PENNSYLVANIA: I think that doing this gives us a chance of maybe to reduce violence in the city.

LAVANDERA: That maybe in the mayor’s answer is what infuriates Kim Stolfer and his gun rights activist group called “Firearms Owners Against Crime.

KIM STOLFER, FIREARMS OWNERS AGAINST CRIME: To come up with an idea and adopt it based on, well, it might work, is ridiculous. We wouldn’t get into an airplane that might fly. There is an awful lot of laws relating to firearms. The real problem here is that it’s not illegal to lose a firearm. It’s not illegal to have it stolen. But they want to prosecute you for being in that situation.

LAVANDERA: Supporters of the Lost and Stolen Ordinance say it’s a way of keeping a tighter watch on guns that go missing.

Gun control advocates say images like these are playing out too often across Pennsylvania. Six law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty last year alone. This funeral honored Officer Michael Crenshaw who was murdered with an AK-47 in this neighborhood outside of Pittsburgh. Investigators say the suspect was wearing an ankle bracelet, a parolee on drug and gun charges.

So far more than a hundred police departments have come out in support of the Lost and Stolen Ordinances.

CHIEF HOWARD BURTON, PENN HILLS POLICE: Most of these ordinances that are being passed…

LAVANDERA: But not everyone in law enforcement thinks it’s the answer. Penn Hills Police Chief Howard Burton says “lost or stolen” is just another feel good law that wouldn’t have saved Officer Michael Crenshaw.

BURTON: We still have to realize we’re dealing with a criminal element. No matter how many laws that are out there, there’s still going to be broken.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAVANDERA: So about a year ago is when this movement started gaining steam there in Pennsylvania. And as far as we’ve been able to put together, no one has been prosecuted or convicted of this Lost and Stolen Ordinance, which obviously drives critics crazier. But the supporters of this say it’s still early. Some of those ordinances have been tied up in lawsuits and other police departments they say are still trying to figure out exactly how to implement this, Kiran.

So it’s freely admitted no one has been prosecuted, and the police have no idea how to implement it, even though this is supposedly vital for fighting criminal trafficking of guns in Pennsylvania? None of the lawsuits have stopped the locates from enforcing the ordinance.

This is a load of crap if I’ve ever seen one.

Democratic Gun Owners Need to Get to Work

A key message from yesterday’s post on the challenging climate we’re facing here in Pennsylvania is that we need Democratic gun owners to show up in a big, big way. If you’re a Pennsylvania gun owner who is registered as a Democrat, you don’t have the option of staying home for the primary election.

Consider that the most “moderate” of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates on record only wants to ban your rifles. (Whether you decide to cast your lot with the one seeking the least amount of gun control or the far-left progressive who can’t win statewide is up to your own voting strategy.)

But as of tomorrow, one of the more extreme gun control advocates is dropping his gubernatorial bid to instead challenge a pro-gun Democratic House member for an open Senate seat.

The Senate seat in question has been primarily Democratic since 1963, so it is likely that the Democratic primary will serve to determine the final office holder, regardless of the election in November. The Democrats who have held it before have been very pro-gun, and hopefully we can keep that tradition. Right now, State Rep. Jim Wansacz currently holds an A rating and is hoping to continue the trend. But tomorrow he will be challenged by Chris Doherty who wants to limit the number of guns you can buy, end statewide preemption, make your license to carry obsolete, and possibly create a formal gun owner registry to track how many guns you try to purchase. It doesn’t matter if you’re a carry advocate, recreational shooter, hunter, or all three, your status as a lawful gun owner under Chris Doherty will be impacted in a very negative way.

That’s one nice thing about Pennsylvania, we still have some pro-gun Democrats. It means that Democratic voters who actually respect the Second Amendment will often have a choice of candidates. In this case, it’s pretty clear that Rep. Wansacz needs your vote, your political donations, and your time.

Military Adopting OTM Round

OTM being Open Tip Match. Apparently it’s not considered to be expanding ammo for the purposes of the Hague Convention, so it’s legal to use in military applications.

Opposite Day

Joining in SayUncle’s theme, but on a different topic. In addition to the Richmond paper saying that maybe repealing one-gun-a-month is the right thing to do, we have a North Jersey paper printing an op-ed from a retired police officer refuting the notion that guns in the home are dangerous and useless.

Mixed Media Reaction to Virginia Rationing Repeal

The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk seems to be having a cow at the idea that the Virginia legislature might repeal their one-gun-a-month law:

Taken together, the gun show loophole and repeal of one handgun a month could easily be called something else: The Strawman’s Bill of Rights.

Except that straw purchasing will be just as illegal after this bill is repealed as it was before it was repealed. How many people have been prosecuted under the one-gun-a-month law anyway? And for all their talk about the “iron pipeline,” I don’t hear East Coast mayors complaining any less loud about Virginia being a source of crime guns. The law is useless and infringes on a constitutional right. Get rid of it.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch seems to be OK with the idea:

One-gun-a-month served a practical function. But it also compromised important principles by infringing on the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution. Like Del. Joe Morrissey, who asked whether the law truly inconviences anyone, advocates of the measure stress that one gun a month should be enough for anyone; no one “needs” to buy more than that. Perhaps. On the other hand, rights are not supposed to be constrained by what some people think other people need. It could be argued that newspapers do not need to publish more than once a week, that nobody needs to buy more than two books a month, that the faithful do not need to attend church more than twice a year, or that no woman should need more than one abortion in her lifetime. Those are not decisions government should make.

Wait a minute, this is from a MSM news source? Do I need to go read that again? I’m going to guess their editorial board won’t be on the Brady Christmas Card list after that one.

Maryland Assault Weapons Ban Withdrawn

Looks like it’s been beat back yet another legislative session.

Now With Uninterruptible Power

Decided to spring for a small UPS unit for the server here. Mostly so I can keep my Internet up during brief power outages. It’s a Cyberpower CP1500 1500VA/900W UPS, and it’ll run at current load, which is about 6-10%, for about an hour with no power. This should make the blog a lot more reliable too. I’ll be pulling the plug out later tonight and seeing how things hold Â up. For now I’m configuring the daemon in the Linux server to shut it down gracefully if the battery runs too low.

UPDATE: Running off UPS power as this is updated. Have a few glitches still to work out with making sure it e-mails me to tell me power is out.

UPDATE: Worked out all the glitches. Seems to be working nicely now. You can tell it’s a cheap UPS since any power supply if feeds while on battery hums like a large flying insect. I don’t have an oscilloscope to look at the output from the inverter, but I’m betting it’s ugly.

Great Day For Gun Owners in Virginia

Dave Adams is reporting that today there have been a number of bills, pro-gun bills, passed out of the various houses of the Virginia Legislature. I ask everyone to head over to this link to Twitter and savor the victory.

More on the UMass Student

Given that he reports he disposed of the firearm with New Hampshire police, it would seem that he might not be in trouble based on what the law actually says. In this case we’re talking about 18 USC 922(a)(3) which states that it shall be unlawful:

(3)Â for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

So it does seem that he’s in the clear if he legally disposed of the firearm in New Hampshire. The question I would have is whether he disposed of it legally. It gets complicated that he’s a Massachusetts resident transferring a gun in New Hampshire, because for that we have 18 USC 922(a)(5):

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

He turned it into the police, but I would note the police are not a federally licensed dealer or collector. Ironically, he would probably have been in the clear completely had he just sold the gun to an FFL the next day at a gun show. For the act of purchasing the firearm, it would appear this student committed no crime, but the act of turning it into the police may have itself been a federal crime, since the police do not hold a federal firearms license, and are not residents of Massachusetts.

But I think that’s being hyper-technical. I doubt you’ll see any prosecution because the kid transferred it to police, even if it violated a technical letter of the law.

UPDATE: As a commenter points out, the definition of “person” in 18USC921 doesn’t include state agencies, like local police, only individuals, and a few other corporate entities. So there was no crime here.

We’re In Potentially Great Danger in PA on Gun Rights

Over at our other blog, we take a look at the some potential problems we could be facing with gun rights in Pennsylvania. We have a lot of NRA A and A+ rated retirements from some pretty powerful positions within the Pennsylvania Legislature, in addition to some contentious and important federal races. We have to defend a lot more highly graded seats than the other side does, and there are plenty of people running for those seats that are poorly rated, or associated with Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

I think the frustrating thing is, Pennsylvania Gun Owners don’t seem, by in large, to be taking these looming threats seriously at all. Over the weekend, we tried to get a dinner meeting together with several of the Pennsylvania NRA Election Volunteer Coordinators from Eastern PA, and only the EVC for the 6th and 7th district showed up. And these are the people who are supposedly plugged in? We’re in a lot of trouble if this is the best we can expect of our “leaders” in this issue. I sense this frustration reflected in an e-mail alert from Kim Stolfer a few days ago, in which he said:

On top of all of this is the issue of the average gun owner turning a blind eye to these and so many other issues. I’m sure all of us know some gun owners who have a myriad of reasons as to why they don’t need to be involved. All one has to do is to go to a gun show or the average gun club and take a look around. I encourage you to grab these guys by the scruff of their philosophical neck and do your best to wake them up! We need everyone in this struggle for our freedoms and our heritage.

I’ve often said people make the mistake of believing Pennsylvania is a pro-gun state. It’s not quite as safely pro-gun as many believe. Sure, when gun owners in this state are stirred to anger, they can be quite an electoral force. The problem with Pennsylvania Gun Owners is they often don’t get involved until we have our backs against a wall. By that time, we’ve already elected anti-gun politicians who convince themselves that our bark is worse than our bite. That’s not the time to get involved. That time is now. Otherwise the basis for the next wave of gun control in Pennsylvania, much like we saw in the early and mid 1990s, is going to be laid. Last time we were lucky to get out without an Assault Weapons Ban, though just barely. Next time we might not be so lucky.