Our view: Handgun reporting proposal makes sense

Of course you think it might be reasonable, but doesn't this make a criminal out of a person against whom a crime has been committed? Personally, I have no problem with such a reporting scheme, but I see this as one more way of criminalizing the ownership of handguns. The vast majority of handguns are not involved in the commission of a crime and are kept by owners for personal protection. According to the courts, the police have no obligation to protect us from criminals, so it is up to us to protect ourselves. Those of us who do so should not be criminals.

Here we go again...

These reporting laws do not fix the problem of criminals using guns. Just another "big brother" government program that wastes tax dollars of good citizens. Let's fight the true problem. Prosecute criminals harder and let's start implementing verdicts that are, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

You already have to register guns when they're bought or sold so the registered owner is known. If anything happens with that gun you need to do a thourough investigation. This law in know way would stop the scenario listed in this editorial of someone reporting that a gun was stolen and then a crime being committed with it. To me it would only help give the shooter a more probable defense.

Three times???

How many times do you get you gun stolen before you bolt a safe to the wall?

here we go again with the LEFT WING PO

My first thought is that anybody with any sense is going to report that their gun has been stolen within 3 days of discovering it gone; and if somebody is removing the serial number from a gun, I'd think it would be a fair bet that they aren't going to be using that gun for good. I don't understand why y'all are complaining about this, if all PA handgun owners acted like they had common sense and did the right thing, this law wouldn't be needed.

SBE, And if all the people that posted here used common sense the board would have less posts

If the person that buys the gun for someone else and doesnt report it stolen, then they are criminally accountable, which means they are arrested and fingerprinted, which then means they cant buy any other guns. Does it stop the problem? Heck no, sure the criminal will get someone else to buy him the ghat, but, at least the same person wont buy it. I believe that if everyone carried a gun and started waxing some of these criminals when they are being victimized, criminals may return to spears and rocks as a more conventional method of committing their crime.:)

tax payer wrote:

Here we go again...
These reporting laws do not fix the problem of criminals using guns. Just another "big brother" government program that wastes tax dollars of good citizens. Let's fight the true problem. Prosecute criminals harder and let's start implementing verdicts that are, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
You already have to register guns when they're bought or sold so the registered owner is known. If anything happens with that gun you need to do a thourough investigation. This law in know way would stop the scenario listed in this editorial of someone reporting that a gun was stolen and then a crime being committed with it. To me it would only help give the shooter a more probable defense.

Reporting the loss is easy. But, what are the police going to do with that information? Are they going to search every person and building in the state hunting for it? How does this stop the criminal use of the stolen weapon? If there is no practical application of the law, why have it?

tax payer wrote:

Here we go again...
These reporting laws do not fix the problem of criminals using guns. Just another "big brother" government program that wastes tax dollars of good citizens.
You already have to register guns when they're bought or sold so the registered owner is known. If anything happens with that gun you need to do a thourough investigation. This law in know way would stop the scenario listed in this editorial of someone reporting that a gun was stolen and then a crime being committed with it. To me it would only help give the shooter a more probable defense.

The gist I got from that article is that if your gun disappears, you need to report it as missing within 3 days, and you can't remove the serial number from a gun. I don't see that as "Big Brother" tactics, I see it as common sense. OF COURSE it's not going to stop a crime from being committed with a stolen gun, but it's also going to notify the cops that there's a stolen gun out there, and possibly clear the gun owner if something does happen with their weapon. If you own a car and it gets stolen you report it - how is that different from if a gun gets stolen? If you are going to own a gun, you need to take some responsibility for owning it; it doesn't stop when you register it.

"The ability for law enforcement to quickly and accurately trace handguns to their owners does nothing infringe upon citizens' right to bear arms."

Wrong answer. Law abiding gun owners see these kind of measures for what they are: another step to the banning and confiscaton of privately owned firearms. This has been the goal of the left, and they constantly put forward these Trojan Horses to attempt to implement it.
England went the same way, until gun ownership, by law-abiding citizens, is virtually banned....which was followed by a massive increase in gun crime.

This is to help stop people from buying guns and selling them on the side to those who might not be able to buy a gun legally.

If they do & a gun is used & traced back, the guy says it was stolen. This law says you can basically get a away with this twice.

For those that own guns and don't look at them everyday, it is possible a gun could be stolen and not disovered as such for months.

It seems like a good law that should not bother gun owners.

Contact your law makers and tell them to vote against it! It will do nothing to curb illegal gun use.

StupidLaw wrote:

Contact your law makers and tell them to vote against it! It will do nothing to curb illegal gun use.

I will do nothing of the sort; if anything, I'd ask them to support this proposed law. I think you gun owners are so paranoid that the government might take away your guns, that any talk of a law that even includes the word "gun" gets you riled up, screaming that they're trying to take your guns away from you. Y'all have lost your minds!

Yep, NRA supporters getting their dandruff up again. Only makes sense that if your gun is stolen, you report it. It will not stop it from being used in a crime but it will get you off the hook if the gun is used in a crime and then found. Don't agree with a lot of gun laws but lets keep bullets off the street. Make it a law that you can only buy three bullets at a time with a hunting license. You should only need one but there are a lot of bad shots out there. Buy as many as you want at a gun club but only be able to take out three. Guns don't kill (most stupid saying I've ever heard) but bullets can. Of course this one beats the first. Maybe the NRA will pick it up.

SBE- Are you saying you trust the government? Do you trust the government to do the right thing? Would you like to buy a bridge?

All these measures mentioned above are only a temporary patch to the problem in my opinion, [no pun] When the legislators and the governor enact a bill that puts a mandatory 5 to 10 year jail sentence with any crime committed with a firearm and no plea deals or that person gets to due the time, this would be served first and independant of the sentence for the crime itself. The state of Mass. had this law back in the 70's but only prosecuted a handful of offenders.........

Anon wrote:

Yep, NRA supporters getting their dandruff up again. Only makes sense that if your gun is stolen, you report it. It will not stop it from being used in a crime but it will get you off the hook if the gun is used in a crime and then found. Don't agree with a lot of gun laws but lets keep bullets off the street. Make it a law that you can only buy three bullets at a time with a hunting license. You should only need one but there are a lot of bad shots out there. Buy as many as you want at a gun club but only be able to take out three. Guns don't kill (most stupid saying I've ever heard) but bullets can. Of course this one beats the first. Maybe the NRA will pick it up.

Get rid of all cars. They kill more people than guns!

Bob from Chambersburg wrote:

All these measures mentioned above are only a temporary patch to the problem in my opinion,[no pun] When the legislators and the governor enact a bill that puts a mandatory 5 to 10 year jail sentence with any crime committed with a firearm and no plea deals or that person gets to due the time, this would be served first and independant of the sentence for the crime itself. The state of Mass. had this law back in the 70's but only prosecuted a handful of offenders.........

Yea but Mass allow their senators to kill people with cars and still be senator.

"If the person that buys the gun for someone else....."

It's already illegal for someone to purchase a weapon for someone else !!!!

Not surprised the P.O. is all for placing the blame and responsibility all on the law-abiding gun owner. If the scumbags were behind bars they couldn't steal guns. And if you don't notice it missing within the period allowed you are an automatic criminal. Shoot this law down. Whoops. Did I use a term offensive to those of the liberal persuasion? Mandatory longer sentences for crimes commited with a firearm.