The shifting priorities of the ICPGV

I've spent much of the last couple months warning of the danger in Illinois of HB 48, which would ban private handgun sales in the state. As I keep saying (to the point of tedium, no doubt), this has been the number one priority of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby in Illinois.

Starting the middle of this past week, I got to shift from warning of that danger, to gloating over the bill's ignominious defeat.

The question now, though, is what will they come after next? Well, actually, we know what they came after next--the day after HB 48 went down in flames, HB 179, mandating "safe-storage," made its own smoking crater right next to the wreckage of HB 48.

OK--but they're still not going to give up--they never do. So what's the next threat? HB 180 would require that all dealers whose inventory includes handguns, and all gunsmiths who work on handguns, acquire state licenses, in addition to the federal license. This bill would be a nightmare, and would actually allow the state to shut down all handgun retail, by simply refusing to issue the licenses (which they can do for any reason they wish, or for no reason at all).

HB 180 has gathered a lot of co-sponsors, but it's so draconian that I think we can beat it--if they couldn't pass HB 48, I don't see how they can pass HB 180.

I think the next goal is HB 845--a "lost or stolen" reporting requirement. I've railed against such legislation often enough in the past that I'm not going to rehash the arguments here--suffice it to say that if such a law passes, all my guns are suddenly going to be "lost."

Still, it's something that sounds "reasonable" to the uninitiated, so its passage is considered doable--there have even been concerted efforts to pass similar legislation in Pennsylvania (a rather more gun-friendly environment than Illinois). Apparently, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV) thinks "lost or stolen" is the place to make their next push. At their site, you'll see that both "Universal Background Checks" and "Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms" are listed as being "priority" legislation.

Now, though, the "Universal Background Checks" legislation is off the table (unless it comes back as an amendment, or as part of a senate bill, but since we beat it once, we can presumably do it again), so "Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms" would seem to be alone. The interesting thing is that according to Google Cache, as of less than a week ago, the background checks bill was their only "priority."



In other words, when their only priority legislation was defeated, they suddenly discovered another priority.

Also from ICPGV:

WHAT'S NEW

3/27/09 – Urgent: We Need Your Help to Stop Illegal Gun Trafficking

Many guns used in crimes can be sourced to illegal sales of firearms that were stolen from or lost by a lawful owner. One important way to disrupt this channel of firearms entering the illegal market is to require that a person report the loss or theft of their firearms. Reporting gives law enforcement the tools to identify individuals engaging in, furthering and profiting from such trade and distribution, while making gun trafficking more difficult for criminals.

We urge you to take the time to call or email your state Representative and urge him or her to support HB 845 (Acevedo), which would require FOID card holders to report the loss or theft of their handguns to local law enforcement agencies within 72 hours after discovering the loss or theft.

In the wild, predators attempt to identify the most vulnerable prey--that which can be taken with the greatest chance of success, the least expenditure of energy, and the least risk of injury to the predator. Those who would destroy our rights are simply another kind of predator--one that preys on liberties, rather than herbivores. They seem to have identified "lost or stolen" legislation as their next best chance of getting a meal, because they think we won't fight it with everything we have.

Let's send 'em away disappointed and hungry.

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.

A ridiculous new twist on 'lost or stolen' reporting requirements

Well, the Illinois Politburo . . . er, legislature is so determined to impose legal obligations on crime victims (as discussed yesterday) that the House adopted not one "lost or stolen" amendment to HB 2760, but two of them. House Amendment 1 would require the rightful owner of the lost or stolen gun to report the loss or theft to the state police, and House Amendment 2 would require that such a report be made to local police. Since the intent, apparently, is to tell as many people as possible, perhaps we should require the owner to take out a full page ad in the local paper, to announce the loss or theft.

The good news is that at least Alderman Mell won't have to worry about this law if it passes, even if his Chicago Alderman Loophole ordinance doesn't pass. The Fifth Amendment protects him from self-incrimination, so he cannot be compelled to report his illegal guns, if they're stolen. It sure must be nice being an alderman.

I fully expect HB 2760 to come up for a vote today, with the idea of getting it to the Senate tomorrow. If you're an Illinois gun owner, I hope you're making your calls to Springfield.

PA 'blame the victim' legislation dies richly deserved death

I guess I'm kind of stuck lately on Pennsylvania's proposed requirement to promptly report lost or stolen handguns, but since I have been talking about it, I might as well follow it to the bitter (for the other side) end. What happened? It died like a dog.

A proposal to require handgun owners to report to police when their weapons are lost or stolen was defeated Tuesday in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

The 75-128 vote was a defeat for gun-control advocates who said it would have helped prevent criminals from using straw buyers to circumvent Pennsylvania's gun sales regulations.

Supporters of the legislation, oddly enough, seem to think they did pretty well.

"Seventy-five is great, on one hand," Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, said afterward. "The reality is, we want to have a law on the books."

Seventy-five is "great"? Admittedly, I'm not especially familiar with Pennsylvania legislative procedure--maybe there's some kind of special consideration given to failed legislative measures that manage a 3/8ths "super-minority." Or maybe Representative Evans is pleased that the measure nearly managed a whopping 54% (55-47) of the Democratic vote. Unfortunately for Dwight, it did rather less well among Republicans (20-81, or not quite 20%--I guess those twenty are the ones discussed here).

Representative Bryan Culter, unlike supporters of this proposed law, seems to have some knowledge of the Bill of Rights, as evidenced by his noting that such a law would violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Rep. Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster, said the legislation raised similar issues to a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied protections against self-incrimination to a gun registration law.

"At best, this law as drafted will be ineffective," he said. "At worst, I believe that it will be unconstitutional."

I cannot help but be very pleased to see a legislator opposing this abomination on those grounds--I thought David Codrea was about the only one making that point (most recently here).

Anyway, it appears that a legal requirement to report lost or stolen guns in Pennsylvania is dead for this year (although it will certainly be back). I wonder if Bryan Miller will find a way to spin this.

Laws requiring gun owners to report 'lost or stolen' guns blame the victims of crime

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the one group of people who cannot be prosecuted under this kind of legislation is the group most likely to pose the real threat to society. Felons and other people prohibited from owning firearms cannot be charged with failure to report a lost or stolen gun, because requiring them to do so would violate their Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination (for the crime of having possessed the gun in the first place). I would argue that any law that can only be used to punish non-felons is a deeply flawed law.

The reason this type of law has become popular with the anti-rights crowd is that it is easy to convince the uninitiated that it is "reasonable," and that opposition to it is unreasonable. The passage of such laws would be billed by groups like the Brady Campaign as yet another "good first step" (every gun law is called a "good first step"--gun control has a lot of "first steps"). In reality, not only is such a step far from the first, it is also in the wrong direction. [More]

The St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner article for today is now up. Having just discussed here the likelihood of a push for "lost or stolen" reporting requirements in Illinois, I figured this would be a good time to explain to a more general audience some of the problems with such a law. Please give it a look.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Atlanta: Self defense is harmful to the environment


• Austin: Gun control and addiction (Part 2)


• Charlotte: Prize fight for the Second Amendment: Levy vs. Henigan


• Cleveland: Mainstream media blaming U.S. for Mexico's drug wars, U.S. citizens not buying it


• DC: Federal court's injunction against National Park gun ban repeal fails giggle test


• Denver: Who is buying the guns in Mexico?


• Los Angeles: Saturday Special: Revealing the Second Amendment, Part II.


• Milwaukee: New anti-gun ”feel good” bills now in committee in WI Capital. CORRECTION


• Minneapolis: Should blogging require government registration?


• National: What does 'Operation Southbound Steel' tell us about smuggling U.S. guns to Mexico?


• Seattle: SeaTac ‘open carry’ gathering sends signal to criminals


• Wisconsin: If you open carry - Wisconsin laws you must know

Philadelphia to get some partners in crime

It seems that several Pennsylvania mayors, encouraged by Philadelphia's defiance of state law (which I've discussed before) prohibiting municipalities from arbitrarily enacting citizen disarmament laws of their own, have pledged to follow Philly into criminality.

Members of the coalition, PA Mayors for Gun Safety, pledged to introduce legislation in their cities that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons or be subject to possible fines and/or jail time.

The announcement was made at a news conference at City Hall here. The group includes Mayor Nutter and the mayors of Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Lancaster, Reading, Pottsville and York.

What makes this illegal, of course, is that Pennsylvania law preempts local power to enact gun laws--authority to infringe on that which shall not be infringed belongs solely to the state (what gives the state the right to control the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a discussion for another day).

As the quoted passage indicates, the "law" in question here is the requirement for victims of theft to report the theft of their guns, or face prosecution themselves.

Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter explains why he thinks preemption doesn't prohibit such laws:

Nutter argued that the state legislation that limits the power of local governments to pass gun legislation governs "lawful weapons." The legislation proposed by the mayors' coalition involves "lost or stolen weapons," Nutter said.

This is clearly idiotic--a lawfully purchased and owned weapon doesn't suddenly cease to be lawful if it becomes lost. Likewise, if such a gun is stolen, its lawful owner is still the owner (and by the way, this law could only be enforced against people who owned guns legally--to require someone who owns a gun illegally to report that fact would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination).

When a governing body enacts laws illegally, the rule of law is clearly dead. That makes it a bit difficult to imagine how these cities can expect their "laws" to be respected.

Snowflakes in Hell has more.

This just in--Governor Rendell is still anti-gun rights

I notice that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is supporting more restrictive gun legislation (that's news?). The murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Chuck Cassidy apparently inspired Rendell to
advocate . . . the same kinds of things he has advocated all along.

Visibly moved by the funeral Wednesday for slain Philadelphia Police Officer Chuck Cassidy, Gov. Rendell yesterday called for tougher penalties for shooting at a police officers and pledged to renew his fight for three gun-control laws stalled in the Legislature.

Alright, I have a big problem with this, even before we get to the "fight for three 'gun-control' laws" part. Whenever I see calls for "tougher penalties for shooting at a police officers [sic]," I get the impression that we are expected to believe that the lives of police officers are implicitly more valuable than the lives of us "Average Joes." That's a concept I utterly reject.

I am not at all "anti-cop," and I would be 100% behind a drive for stiffer penalties for assault with lethal force (on anyone, cops included), but to say that such assaults are less offensive when perpetrated against school teachers, carpenters, or blues harmonica players, than they are when perpetrated against police officers is to epitomize the "Only Ones" mentality.

Rendell proposed raising the sentence to 20 years for anyone who shoots at a police officer, and said he'd raise money for an intensive public information campaign so criminals know the rules have changed.

"We want to get out onto the street a clear message," Rendell said. "Even if you shoot at [a police officer] and miss, you are going to jail for 20 years, no ifs, ands or buts. No guilty pleas can save you, no judge can save you. . . . You do not shoot at police officers."

O'Brien backed the idea, saying, "We ask our men and women in blue to take these risks. When they walk into a Dunkin' Donuts and someone shoots them, it's because they're wearing that uniform. We can't tolerate that in this society."

The fantasy of a "no ifs, ands or buts" approach to criminal justice, in the (in)famously porous Philadelphia "justice" system would be laughable, were the reality not so disgusting.

Pennsylvania House Speaker O'Brien, in saying that cops are being shot because they are cops, might be trying to argue that the enhanced penalties for shooting at cops is not because he thinks that their lives are inherently more valuable than everyone else's, but because they are at greater risk. If that is his argument, it's a weak one. The fact that more people might see a benefit in shooting an officer than in shooting a truck driver does not make shooting the truck driver any less evil.

The three "gun control" laws mentioned earlier are the usual suspects:

The proposed laws would require gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons, limit handgun sales to one per person per month, and enable municipalities to enact their own gun laws.

So, we have the "criminalize the crime victim" law, the gun rationing law, and the "allow us to be as brilliantly successful in combating violent crime as Chicago and Washington DC have" law.

Oh--look who else supports these laws:

One NRA member, influential Philadelphia Democratic state Sen. Vince Fumo, said through a spokesman yesterday that he'd support Rendell's bills if they reached the Senate.

I'd call Fumo a traitor, but if LaPierre himself advocates maintaining schools as victim disarmament zones, and actively helps write a massive expansion of the NICS program, I suppose the NRA has little room to fault Fumo.

About that proposed law to require a gun owner to report the loss or theft of a gun--I'm no attorney, and am in no position to give legal advice, but if such a law ever passes here in Illinois (it has been proposed, by the way), I know what I'm going to do. The very day it goes into effect, I am going to tell the police that I went canoeing on the Mississippi river, with all my guns in the boat, and that the canoe capsized, and all my guns were lost.

None of the "report lost or stolen gun" laws I've seen required the gun owner to report finding the guns again, so as long as I don't file an insurance claim, I don't see how I can be charged with anything, even if it is eventually discovered that I have the guns. Never mind that I'm paraplegic, and can't really imagine how I'd get in and out of a canoe, and never mind that in the event of a capsizing, I would most likely drown--I'm still clinging to the naive idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. If, by then, I have one hundred guns (a man can dream, can't he?), I'll say I took twenty trips, and capsized every time.

If they insist on passing freedom-destroying laws for no purpose other than to . . . destroy freedom, they'll have to deal with said laws being treated with the contempt they deserve.

Illinois 'Lost or Stolen' bill goes down in flames

If this sort of thing keeps up, I might have to stop referring to the Illinois General Assembly as the Illinois "Politburo." The bill I have been railing against for the last two days, HB 2760, the ridiculous "lost or stolen" reporting requirement bill, which would require reporting the loss or theft of a gun to not one, but two police agencies, went down in flames a few minutes ago, receiving only forty-seven of the required fifty-nine votes (to sixty-four "No" votes).

Common sense, notoriously uncommon in Illinois politics, prevails (for once). All I need to make my satisfaction complete is to hear the anguished bleating of the citizen disarmament herbivores.

Still tightening the screws on Illinois gun owners

I'm still not planning to shut up about HB 48, and what I think we need to do to try to stop it.

The enemy is once again stepping up the pressure to pass HB 48, this time with one of their "polls."

The survey results show an overwhelming majority of Illinois voters strongly support common sense gun laws such as background checks for private gun sales and requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to law enforcement.

Voters statewide expressed overwhelming support for closing the “private sale loophole” by requiring background checks for all gun sales, with 90 percent in support and 76 percent strongly supporting such a measure. Support for universal background checks was strong among Republicans (85%), gun owners (79%), and NRA members (70%). Women, voters residing in the suburbs of Chicago, and Hispanic voters had the highest levels of support for the measure, each at 96 percent.

“It’s not surprising that so many women support background checks on private gun sales,” said Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R-Glenview). “The fact is that women who are the victims of domestic abuse are particularly at risk of being shot and killed and gun violence disproportionately affects children and young people. If you’re thinking about the safety of your family and your own safety, it makes sense to support something as simple and necessary as background checks to keep felons, domestic violence offenders, minors and people with severe mental illness from accessing guns.”

Not mentioned there is that most of the survey was done in DuPage County--one of the "collar counties" surrounding the Chicago area--where the responsible, peaceable gun culture has been all but smothered over the course of decades. The rest of the survey was in the Peoria, IL region--a good deal farther from Chicago, but not exactly "downstate."

I also have to wonder what kind of leading questions were asked.

It seems a push is also being made for HB 845, the Blame the Victim . . . oops--I mean Lost or Stolen Reporting Requirement bill. That just passed in a House committee Wednesday, and can come up for a vote on the House floor any time now. That might be their second biggest priority, at this point.

If it passes, I'm going to be reporting a lot of "lost" guns, I guess.

Did I mention IGOLD '09 recently?

New Illinois insanity

Just when I thought that the forcible citizen disarmament freaks in this state had tried just about every possible means of attacking that which shall not be infringed, a particularly creative freedom-hater comes along and manages to surprise me. Meet Illinois State Representative Ken Dunkin.

And now, let's look at his bright idea--HB 687:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

So this genius wants to require every gun owner to carry at least a million dollars worth of insurance for misuse of his gun.

Actually, I might have given him too much credit for creativity--he's not the first to come up with this . . . inspired idea.

Oh, by the way, he's not averse to the boring old citizen disarmament plans we've seen before, as per his website:

Tougher Gun Control
This year Rep. Dunkin is supporting a package of gun control laws that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly firearms. One measure supported by Dunkin would limit handgun purchases to one per month, which would cut off a supply of guns purchased by “straw buyers.” Another measure would require more parents to use gun locks when minors are present and would stiffen penalties for parents who do not comply. Dunkin also continues to support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Kinda looks as if it would be hard to find a freedom-killing gun law he would not support.

Today is the day in PA

This probably won't come as news to any regular readers of gun blogs, but today, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee meets, with several restrictive gun laws on the agenda. Virulently anti-gun Governor Ed Rendell will speak to the committee in support of the bills.

Here are the bills of which I speak:

The package includes legislation, House Bill 22, for a one-gun-a-month policy. Rep. John Myers (D-Philadelphia) is sponsoring the bill, which would disallow a law-abiding Pennsylvanian to purchase more than one handgun in 30 days.

"To some extent, we need to create a public policy saying we want to cut down on the availability of guns," Rep. Myers told The Bulletin. "I really can't even imagine where I would store 12 guns in my house in a year."

"Cut down the availability of" a legal product? So basically, you mean make it an illegal product, right (not that such an approach works for reducing availability--see "War on Drugs"). By the way, notice that the article says that such a law "would disallow a law-abiding Pennsylvanian to purchase more than one handgun in 30 days." Whether intentional or not, I applaud the article's author, Bradley Vasoli, for his perception--such legislation prevents the law-abiding citizens (exactly the ones we don't need to worry about) from buying multiple handguns in a month, but will have no effect on the felons who buy their guns on the street.

House Bill 18, sponsored by Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Philadelphia), would strengthen the ability of municipalities to enact gun-control measures that could supersede state law. Gun-rights supporters, who tend to regard Pennsylvania law as tolerant of firearms ownership, believe this would weaken residents' ability to protect themselves and confuse gun owners who travel from one jurisdiction to another.

Yeah--some folks just can't seem to see the wisdom in allowing communities to pass laws that make mockery of fundamental human liberties.

A third measure, House Bill 29, would criminalize the failure to report a handgun missing or stolen within 24 hours of its disappearance. The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates believe this measure will only harm Pennsylvania residents who have not acted maliciously.

"My bill would tell people that they must be responsible to report their guns lost or stolen," the bill's sponsor Rep. Jewell Williams (D-Philadelphia) said. Gun owners "should be thankful" for it, he said, because it will extricate them from liability for paying a victim's medical bills or punitive damages if their gun was used by another individual.

Yep--that's my favorite part--"Gun owners 'should be thankful' for" being held responsible for what criminals do with the guns they steal from peaceable gun owners.

The Philly Daily News editorial board seems to take a view somewhat different from mine.

WHAT WILL it take to bring our Harrisburg lawmakers to their senses, to break them out of the National Rifle Association's hypnotic trance and pass the handgun laws we so desperately need?

A splash of cold water to their faces? A sustained high-decibel scream? A sharp snap of the fingers?

You could try those things, I guess--seems a bit puerile to me, but I suppose it's about par for course.

Coming soon to Illinois towns that have dropped their handgun bans?

In line with my policy of keeping a close eye on the enemy, I was taking a look around on the website of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV) last night. For those not familiar with them, they're the Illinois chapter of the rabidly anti-gun Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV).

It turns out they've written what they're calling a "model" gun law for Illinois jurisdictions.

10/24/08 – New Model Gun Law from LCAV for Illinois

The Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) has developed LCAV Model Gun Owner’s Safety and Responsibility Act for Illinois jurisdictions to require firearm owners’ safety certificates, registration, safe storage of firearms, and reporting of lost and stolen firearms. Visit www.lcav.org to read the model law.

My first thought was that the plan here was to push this law (we'll look at it in a minute) in the state legislature. That puzzled me, because even in Illinois, nothing that draconian is going to pass any time soon.

After some discussion at IllinoisCarry.com, I (belatedly) came to realize that the real idea is to pass this kind of thing in Illinois municipalities (like Evanston, Wilmette, Oak Park, and Morton Grove) that have dropped their handgun bans in the wake of the Heller decision, and others (Winnetka and Chicago) that have not done so yet, but may eventually be forced to.

Sort of like the "emergency legislation" enacted by the Washington D.C. city council immediately after Heller, the idea of this law would be to implement gun laws just as draconian as they could possibly be without an outright ban.

So let's take a quick look at the details (starting on page 20--and running 14 pages--here).

1) Gun owner licensing (with safety training--5 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours of live-fire training) for each gun, with the license requiring renewal every 2 years (I think the instruction is waived for renewal, but the written test is still required);

2) Registration for every gun, renewal required annually;

3) "Safe storage" (either trigger lock or gun safe) required--having the gun on one's person is no exception;

4) "Lost or stolen" reporting requirements;

. . . and probably stuff I missed or am forgetting. No mention was made of any limit on fees that would be required for the safety instruction, licensing, and registration.

"Only Ones" would, of course, be exempt

Now that's shall not be infringed in action, isn't it?

By the way, LCAV has several other "model gun laws" in mind. Some are standard citizen disarmament fare--"assault weapons" bans, .50 caliber bans, etc., but for anyone who doubts that they want to inflict U.K.-style forcible citizen disarmament on us, note that they apparently want to ban air rifles.

Personalized Handguns
Requires the personalization of handguns – equipping handguns with technology that prevents them from firing when operated by an unauthorized user. Provides testing standards and certification procedures for personalized handguns. Prohibits the manufacture, importation, purchase and transfer of non-personalized handguns.

Assault Weapons
Bans assault weapons using provisions that are more comprehensive than federal law. Also bans large capacity ammunition magazines.

Fifty Caliber Rifles
Prohibits the sale of 50 caliber rifles and cartridges.

Air Rifles
Bans the sale and possession of air rifles, defined to include B-B, air and pellet guns.

Universal Background Checks
Requires background checks on all prospective firearm purchasers, closing a loophole in federal law allowing private firearm sellers (i.e., unlicensed persons) to sell guns without conducting background checks.

Regulating Gun Dealers
Regulates firearms dealers. Supplements federal law by requiring, among other things, that dealers obtain a local permit, conduct employee background checks and obtain liability insurance. Also prohibits dealers from operating in residential neighborhoods and near other “sensitive” areas, such as schools, playgrounds and places of worship. LCAV created models for Illinois and California, both of which can be tailored to other jurisdictions.

Expect to see more and more of this kind of thing in the aftermath of Heller.

More at Days of Our Trailers.

Quisling 'Republicans' in Pennsylvania

This story has already been covered at War on Guns, but it's infuriating enough to deserve another look.

Nine Philadelphia-area Republicans signaled last week they would break ranks with their caucus today and support handgun-control legislation when the state House of Representatives resumes debate on a controversial proposal.

The measure, which would require reporting handguns that are lost or stolen, has been vigorously pushed by Democrats in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as a "common sense" restriction that would reduce gun violence.

Ah, yes--the increasingly popular notion of imposing legal obligations on victims of crime. Brilliant--and even Republicans can get behind it.

Some of those Republicans even openly admit that such laws will do nothing to reduce violent crime--but why let that stop them?

Nine local Republicans also said they would vote for the proposal. Some said they would do so in response to their constituents, who polls show overwhelmingly support the measure. Others said they were not convinced the reporting requirement would work but thought something must be done.

It won't work, but we have to do something--why not this?

Many Philadelphia-area Republicans, however, said lawmakers had to do something about crimes involving guns, even if the legislation was imperfect.

"There is interest in gun-control legislation that has the reporting requirement because gun violence has affected the people that I represent," said Rep. Kate Harper (R., Montgomery).

Rep. John Perzel (R., Phila.) said he would vote for the measure but doubted its usefulness.

"I don't know if it will get any illegal guns off the streets," Perzel said. "I don't believe it will have any effect."

Well that certainly explains your "yes" vote.

Rep. John Taylor (R., Phila.) said he, too, was a "yes" vote, but he said he was concerned about the potential consequences for law-abiding citizens who fail to report their weapons and who could face criminal charges.

"There is enough sentiment out there that this will really impact regular Joes and that the crackhead going to make straw purchases isn't going to be affected in the least."

Concerned about the consequences, but not sufficiently concerned to protect your constituents from this abomination, I see.

But, Taylor added, "We have a big enough problem in Philly that I'll try anything."

Ah--back to the "It won't work (and does a number on rights), but we have to do something--anything--to at least appear to the voters as if we're on top of violent crime.

As War on Guns points out (and has done so before), such laws can only be enforced against people who can legally own guns (that would be us regular, peaceable citizens), because the Fifth Amendment would protect a felon from a requirement to incriminate himself by reporting the loss or theft of a gun that he owned illegally.

I've said before what I will do if such a law passes in Illinois (a depressingly very real possibility): the day it goes into effect, I'll report every piece of ordnance I own as lost. After that, every time I buy a gun, I'll report it as lost, as well. If a few tens of thousands of gun owners do that, maybe even the geniuses who support such measures will start to figure out how useless they are.

P.S., and utterly unrelated (except for the involvement of gun rights/gun laws)--from War on Guns, I've discovered that I'm famous. OK--that's obviously an enormous exaggeration, but it's still kind of rarefied air for a lowly, insignificant (and somewhat intermittent, lately) blogger like me.

A Nutter's version of American patriotism

I wasn't planning to write about the Philadelphia city government's decision to become a criminal organization (by illegally enacting "laws" that are not within its power to enact), but Mayor Nutter's (is that an appropriate name, or what?) statements in this article are too offensive to go unchallenged.

Mayor Nutter likened himself and City Council members yesterday to the band of rebels who formed this country as he signed five new gun-control laws that defy the state legislature and legal precedent.

"Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.

Don't you dare, Nutter. Don't you dare compare yourself, and your attacks on the freedoms that built this country, to the men who secured those freedoms for us.

For those who have not been following this story, and are in need of some background, Sebastian (a PA resident), at Snowflakes in Hell, has been covering it extensively--start here, then read this.

The (extremely) short version is that the Philadelphia City Council passed, and Mayor Nutter signed (and ordered immediate enforcement of) five citizen disarmament laws, despite the fact that Pennsylvania's state constitution specifically reserves the power to pass such laws to the state (not that any gun laws passed at the state or national level are Constitutional, either, but that's another topic).

This, by the way, isn't the first time the City Council has passed such laws, but last year was apparently just a shot across the bow, and the "laws" were never actually implemented--not so this time.

Back to the present:

The five laws - called everything from unconstitutional to criminal by critics - do the following:

Limit handgun purchases to one a month.

Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.

Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

Outlaw the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.

I've not seen Philadelphia's definition of "assault weapon," but according to SiH, it's so broad that even a Ruger 10/22 with a ported barrel is an illegal "assault weapon." By the way, I'm not sure what " . . . everything from unconstitutional to criminal . . . " means--I thought unconstitutional was criminal.

The article ends with another Nutter gem:

"If we all sat around bemoaning what the law was on a regular basis," Nutter said. "I'd probably still be picking cotton somewhere as opposed to being mayor of the city of Philadelphia."

"Still be picking cotton," Nutter? When have you ever done that? That chapter of your life certainly seems to have escaped the attention of the author(s) of your Wikipedia entry.

It seems to me that Nutter fancies himself as the one to be putting folks in chains.

War on Guns has more.

Background checks, liberty, and public safety

Once we grow past the concept of "prohibited persons" lists, the entire delicate structure of justification for almost every "gun control" law (or at least all of them devoted to combating gun trafficking) is swept away. No "terror gap" laws, obviously, no "gun show loophole" laws, no "one gun a month," no "lost or stolen," etc. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please read it (digg it?) and tell a friend.

Another fire to put out in Illinois

Yesterday, an amendment containing "lost or stolen" language was introduced to HB 2760. The amendment has already been approved by committee, and will be up for a floor vote very soon, probably today. If the amendment is adopted (an almost automatic process), the floor vote on the entire bill will probably take place immediately.

My objections to this "reasonable" legislation are numerous, and I've talked about them too many times before for it to make sense to rehash my objections yet again, so today I'm just going to urge folks to call the representatives to express the need to defeat this nitwittery.

Here's the contact information to use:

Representative Suzanne Bassi (R-47th District)
(217) 782-8026
(217) 782-5257 FAX;

Representative Patricia Bellock (R-54th District)
(217)-782-1448
(217) 782-2289 FAX;

Representative Bob Biggins (R-41st District)
(217) 782-6578
(217) 782-5257 FAX;

Representative Sandy Cole (R-62nd District)
(217) 782-7320
(217) 782-1275 FAX;

Representative Joe Dunn (R-96th District)
(217) 782-6507
(217) 782-5257 FAX

Representative Mike Fortner (R-95th District)
(217) 782-1653
(no Springfield FAX listed);

Representative Paul Froelich (D-56th District)
(217) 782-3725
(217) 557-6271 FAX;

Representative Charles Jefferson (D-67th District)
(217) 782-3167
(217) 557-7654 FAX;

Representative Michael Madigan (D-22nd District; Speaker of the House)
(217) 782-5350
(217) 524-1794 FAX;

Representative Sidney Mathias (R-53rd District)
(217) 782-1664
(217) 782-1275 FAX;

Representative James H. Meyer (R-48th District)
(217) 782-8028
(217) 557-0571 FAX;

Representative Ruth Munson (R-43rd District)
(217) 782-8020
(no Springfield FAX listed);

Representative Sandra Pihos (R-42nd District)
(217) 782-8037
(217) 558-1072 FAX;

Representative Harry Ramey (R-55th District)
(217) 558-1037
(217) 782-5257 FAX;

Representative Dennis Reboletti (R-46th District)
(217) 782-4014
(no Springfield FAX listed);

Representative Ed Sullivan Jr. (R-51st District)
(217) 782-3696
(217) 782-1275 FAX

After Saturday, legislation will require a 3/5ths super-majority, rather than a simple majority, to pass, and the state will be relatively safe (for the moment) from the epidemic of gun laws. Until then, we have to hold the line with grassroots. Let's do it.

Someone forgot to tell this sheriff that he's an Only One

Sheriff Barry J. Jozwiak, of Berks County, Pennsylvania, apparently didn't get the memo about law enforcement officers being the Only Ones professional enough to keep and bear arms. His testimony to a panel of PA lawmakers would seem to indicate that he is under the nutty impression that the Bill of Rights protects that right for everyone (the horror!).

There would seem to be plenty of people who would like to set him straight about that, though.

Jozwiak’s testimony before the state House Judiciary Committee in City Council chambers put him at odds with Reading Mayor Tom McMahon, Philadelphia lawmakers and others calling for tougher handgun laws in response to a rash of shootings and murders in Pennsylvania cities.

He just doesn't seem to get it.

"Gun control does not reduce crime," Jozwiak said. "In fact, criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed."

Criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed?! Could that be? But wait a second--Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke want us unarmed, also, and so does Josh Sugarmann (VPC). That would mean that these groups want the same thing the criminals do. That is certainly an interesting alliance.

Jozwiak even criticized a proposal that would require gun owners to notify police if their handguns were lost or stolen.

He "even" criticized legislation that could turn crime victims into criminals! Is he deranged?!

Good thing Pennsylvania has some legislators who aren't so caught up in this "Constitutional rights" nonsense.

State Rep. Jewell Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat, said he was frustrated by the influence the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates exert in blocking efforts to get guns off the streets.

"People are dying in Pennsylvania," Williams said. "Your kids ... are being shot, robbed and murdered with illegal guns. It’s almost like people don’t care anymore. It’s like special-interest groups are controlling people’s lives."

I'm surprised Jewell doesn't see the obvious solution--if gun rights advocates are too effective in their protection of the Second Amendment, we need to shut them down--go after the First Amendment, so we can pass any civilian disarmament laws we like, without pesky talk of "rights."

Unfortunately, it seems that the Sheriff is not alone in his bizarre insistence on protecting "rights."

State Rep. Jim Cox, a Spring Township Republican, said he would not support the one-handgun-per-month legislation because it chips away at gun owners’ rights and could lead to more drastic restrictions.

"I want people to have the sheer, unadulterated ability to defend themselves," Cox said. "If they want to go out and buy 20 weapons to protect themselves because there has been a crime wave in their neighborhood, I don’t want to restrict them."

With people like Sheriff Jozwiak and Representative Cox, Pennsylvania may never have a massive firearms registration bureaucracy, with fingerprinting, annual criminal background checks, mandatory "safe storage," $10 annual registration fee per gun, etc.

With people like Jozwiak and Cox in office, Pennsylania may never free itself from the curse of human rights.

Many thanks to David Codrea, at War on Guns, for the link and the kind words--very much appreciated.

'Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?'

Sebastian, at Snowflakes in Hell, has found the Quote of the Day--if not the Quote of the Month.

“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne. “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.”

Councilwoman Tonya Payne was referring to Pittsburgh, PA's adoption of "lost or stolen" reporting requirements for gun owners.

Ignore, for now, the uselessness of such an ordinance.

Ignore, for now, the wrong-headed evil of "blame the victim" legislation.

Ignore, for now, the fact that felons and other people prohibited by law from possessing firearms are the ones who cannot be prosecuted under a law like this, because of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

I assume Ms. Payne was referring not to the U.S. Constitution, and the Second Amendment, but to the Pennsylvania state constitution, and its mandate for state preemption of firearms regulation. [Correction: the Pennsylvania mandate for state preemption of firearm regulation is apparently not part of the state constitution, but was instead a statutory measure. Sorry for my misunderstanding.] In the end, though, that doesn't really matter--her attitude is a classic example of the mindset of the forcible citizen disarmament crowd--the mindset that believes the agenda is more important than protections against a government drunk on power.

It is, in fact, government officials with that kind of mindset who are the reason that the Second Amendment is so necessary.

Radical changes, for the worse

A fellow gun rights activist at Illinois Carry posted an interesting discovery today about what some rabidly anti-rights/anti-self-defense Illinois politicians previously thought about gun rights. This is a 1994 article, and it begins with an account of the burglary of Illinois Senator Rickey Hendon's house, in which a handgun (illegal in Hendon's Chicago home) was stolen.

In February, Illinois State Sen. Rickey Hendon came home to discover that his house on the Westside of Chicago had been robbed. The burglary got more than the usual amount of press attention because the former alderman lost not only money but also an unregistered handgun. It has been illegal since 1983 for even the most law-abiding Chicago residents to own handguns; only guns owned before the ban was passed can be registered, and they must be re-registered every two years. Possession of an unregistered handgun carries a penalty of less than a year in prison or a $500 fine.

What, I wonder, would be his response? Remorse, do you suppose? Apparently not.

Hendon was unapologetic. "I have a right to protect myself," the black Democrat told the Chicago Sun-Times.

A "right to protect [your]self," eh? Well, I'm with you, Rickey--I really am--but don't all citizens have the same right? It would seem that Rickey doesn't think so (at least anymore)--look, for example at his 2005 gun legislation voting record (Excel file), in which of the thirteen Senate votes on bills relating to firearms, he voted nine times against gun rights, and only three times for them (he abstained on another). Of those three, incidentally, I personally would not categorize two of them as particularly "pro-gun"--one was for a bill that dealt with firearms carry for retired "Only Ones," and another was for a bill that would impose "enhanced" penalties for felons in possession of firearms.

By the way, what's this all about?

The police decided not to charge Hendon with violating the gun law because it wasn't clear who actually owned the gun.

Well, if "possession is nine tenths of the law," I guess Rickey must have slipped into that last one tenth--how convenient for him.

I suspect I'll be talking about this article again soon, because it raises some very worthwhile points about the racially discriminatory nature of citizen disarmament laws that are specifically targeted at inner city residents--laws which tend to disproportionately disarm blacks, in just the kinds of high crime areas in which self-defense is most often necessary. To do that topic justice, though, I should devote an entire blog post to it, and today, I have other issues to discuss.

Senator Hendon, and his apparent hypocrisy, is one of those issues--the other is Cook County Commissioner William Beavers. Beavers, you may remember, recently proposed the "Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance", which would be a near-total, confiscatory ban on firearms in Cook County. Curiously, though, he sang a vastly different tune back in '94, as a Chicago Alderman.

That sentiment is common among the residents of Chicago's tougher neighborhoods. It's easy for people with wealth and political power to push stricter and stricter gun control laws, notes Alderman William Beavers, who represents the working-class, mostly black South Shore district. The wealthy, he says, "can afford to pay a detective agency or some kind of police agency to act as security." His constituents, he argues, deserve the right to protect themselves.

Beavers, in fact, repeatedly attempted to reestablish Chicagoans' ability to register handguns.

Now, for the second time in five years, he [Beavers] has proposed legislation to reopen handgun registration. The idea is endorsed by other prominent black political leaders, including activist Sokoni Karanja of the Center for New Horizons and Aldermen Virgil Jones and Robert Shaw, who feel that gun bans prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

[ . . . ]

Beavers, however, doesn't emphasize the racial dimension in opposing the gun-registration freeze. Instead, he stresses Second Amendment issues and pragmatic policy concerns.

"The Constitution allows you to bear arms in your home," he says. "But according to our city ordinance, it's illegal to own a firearm that is not registered."
(While he defends a right to ownership, the alderman is no Second Amendment purist. He is, for instance, against the issuing of carry permits.)

Beavers is also disturbed that the registration freeze forces law-abiding citizens into breaking the law if they, like Sen. Hendon, try to protect themselves by keeping a handgun in the house. And the freeze, Beavers thinks, makes the police's job tougher by making it more difficult to track stolen firearms. "Guns are stolen now from people who don't have them registered and won't report the [theft]," says Beavers.

[ . . . ]

For his part, Beavers remains pledged to change Chicago's handgun registration law by hammering home arguments born out of real-world experience. Gun control will always fail, he argues, because criminals are never going to register their guns. And as for ordinary citizens who feel a need to protect themselves: "People are going to own guns. You cannot deny them the right to own a gun."

So what happened to change your mind, William? Did the Second Amendment get repealed, and no one told me? Is it no longer a problem to you that citizens are forced to choose between being criminals and being defenseless? Do you no longer think it's a problem that people will decline to report the theft of a gun that they were forbidden to possess?

Or, perhaps, do you simply have a new, anti-rights agenda?

Speaking of Connecticut . . .

While I'm on the subject of bizarre attitudes in Connecticut about guns, I should probably mention that the drive in Connecticut to turn crime victims into criminals is moving forward. I refer (as I did here, among other places) to Connecticut Senate Bill 903. This bill would make failure to report the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours of the time the owner knows or "should have known" (and how is that defined?) a crime (a felony, on subsequent "offenses"). It also places responsibility on the gun owner to store his or her firearms in a manner that makes stealing them difficult (if the specifics of what the storage requirements are have been defined, I haven't been able to find them). I'll bet that private owners of guns will be held to higher standards than the Hartford, Connecticut police department has managed to meet. In other words, this law says that if your gun is stolen, you are subject to blame for it--good thing we're not holding the poor burglar fully responsible for his actions.

Also, referring again to today's earlier post about Stanley Janiak (the owner of the illegal "arsenal"), this law brings up an interesting dilemma. What if any of his guns are stolen? Clearly, SB 903 cannot be applied to him, because requiring him to report that he lost firearms he was prohibited from having would clearly be forcing him to incriminate himself, and thus be a gross violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, not only would this bill make criminals out of crime victims, it would also be specifically inapplicable to many criminals. All you have to do to be exempt from this legislation is to own your guns illegally.

This is what I call some Looney legislation.