Understanding Philly

Dave Hardy hits on a piece from a local paper that describes a situation not uncommon in our fair city, and speculates it might be a symptom of why the city has a crime problem:

a gun dealer has a stolen gun, it’s recovered in a drug bust. The arrested guy has a long record. He’s let out after posting a $100 bond, and charges are later dropped. The dealer requests return of the gun and is told he must file a motion and appear in court. “So the guy they caught with Crane’s stolen gun doesn’t have to appear before a judge, but Crane does.”

I congratulate DH, a resident of Arizona, for having a better grasp on the city’s crime problem than its politicians do. The sad thing is, the guy will probably not easily get his stolen gun back. Pennsylvania law is clear on this issue:

§ 6111.1 (b) 4. The Pennsylvania State Police and any local law enforcement agency shall make all reasonable efforts to determine the lawful owner of any firearm confiscated by the Pennsylvania State Police or any local law enforcement agency and return said firearm to its lawful owner if the owner is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm. When a court of law has determined that the Pennsylvania State Police or any local law enforcement agency have failed to exercise the duty under this subsection, reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded to any lawful owner of said firearm who has sought judicial enforcement of this subsection.

Yet the City of Philadelphia routinely fail to return firearms to their lawful owners. At least they’ll have to pay this guy’s court costs when all is said and done, but personally, I think there need to be criminal penalties in regards to some of these sections, because Philadelphia cares not a whit for state law. The equation is very simple:

Spending sparse city resources to harass lawful gun owners = Good
Spending sparse city resources to harass criminals = Bad

And to think, we elected one of these boneheaded city politicians as our Governor!