New Jersey uses Bill of Rights as Charmin substitute

Snowflakes in Hell brings us the bad news that New Jersey is likely slipping still further into gun owner's hell (every time I think states like NJ, CA, or my own IL can't get any worse, they seem to take it as a challenge). The article to which SiH refers mentions three bills. I'm going to discuss just one of those today.

The Senate voted 26-7 for a bill requiring handgun owners to tell state or local police within 36 hours of discovering a handgun they own is lost or stolen, in an effort to crack down on straw purchasers who buy weapons in bulk and sell them on the black market. The Assembly Judiciary Committee also approved the bill.

When weapons used in crimes are traced back to their legal purchaser, that person can claim the gun was lost or stolen -- effectively, bill sponsors say, escaping culpability for the crime. Under the bill, those who report their guns are lost or stolen would not be held civilly liable for damages suffered in any subsequent crime.

Failing to report a loss or theft could result in fines of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for all subsequent offenses.

The bill referred to here is S. 2934, and incidentally, the Courier Post seems to be a bit behind the times with this part: "Under the bill, those who report their guns are lost or stolen would not be held civilly liable for damages suffered in any subsequent crime." That statement seems to miss the amendments that (among other things) do this:

The amendments also remove language specifying that the legal owner of a lost or stolen firearm who complied with the reporting requirements would not be civilly liable for any damages resulting from a crime.

Yep--the bill initially contained language that would protect the owner from liability stemming from his being the victim of a crime, but the legislators, in their infinite wisdom, removed that provision.*

If S. 2934 passes (which it seems bound to do), I think every handgun owner in New Jersey, on the day the law goes into effect, should report that all their handguns fell into the ocean (or were irretrievably lost in some other fashion). Let the petty tyrants chew on that.

By the way, as War on Guns points out, this law can only be used against people who own their guns legally--law abiding gun owners, in other words. It cannot be used against felons or other "prohibited persons," because requiring a person to report the loss or theft of something he was barred by law from possessing in the first place would be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Interesting choice of targets for their law, isn't it?

*UPDATE: According to Sebastian, the removal of the civil liability protection language was the idea of the pro-rights side, rather than the opposition:

Actually, we wanted that provision removed. There's currently no tort that would make you liable for the actions of a criminal who stole your property an misused it. By having it in the law, it implied such a tort existed, which could have created not only civil liability, but criminal liability for a gun owner who failed to report it.

A bit counterintuitive, but I suppose I sort of see the reasoning. I guess I maligned the NJ legislature unfairly--on that issue. Ah well--hell with 'em anyway.