|
April 06, 2008
A new crime which exempts the criminals it targets!
I've previously criticized the "lose a gun, go to jail" bill they've been promoting in Pennsylvania, because it would criminalize law abiding gun owners while doing nothing about the problem criminals it purports to address. In her column today, Monica Yant Kinney excoriates Philadelphia Representative Dennis O'Brien (also Pennsylvania's House Speaker) for voting against the bill. Sorry, Denny, but the really glaring thing is how anyone could be against requiring owners of a product that can take a life to report its loss or theft just as they would any other item of value.Um, sorry Monica, but unless you want to criminalize the failure to report lost wedding rings, I don't think the "really glaring" comparison is valid. She paints O'Brien as some sort of nut, yet it's quite obvious that he's done some thinking about the bill: O'Brien and I haven't talked since we had words at a crime forum last year, but to his credit he e-mailed a detailed 763-word response explaining his decision.Imagine, a legislator having qualms about ensnaring the innocent! The very idea! Doesn't he realize that there is no such thing as an innocent gun owner? Still struggling to comprehend the latest city-suburb divide, I called Rep. Kate Harper in Blue Bell. She voted for the lost-and-stolen amendment with 17 other suburban Republicans, but said she could see why O'Brien had refused.Wrong, wrong, wrong. This law would not target anyone who gives a gun to anyone. It makes it a crime to not report thefts or losses. Legal or otherwise, Grandma giving Grandpa's gun to a son (or to anyone else) is neither a "loss" nor is it a "theft." Illegal transfers are already illegal. This bill does nothing about that. Instead it adds a new crime which could only be committed by persons who are not involved in illegal transfers. Illegal transferors are not affected by the reporting requirement, because an illegal transfer is neither a loss nor a theft. To understand why, put yourself in the position of someone who has decided to sell a gun illegally. The buyer gives you the cash, you give him the gun. Where's the loss? Where's the theft? Anyone reporting a lost or stolen gun which was not lost or stolen would have to lie -- and would therefore be committing the different and separate crime or making a false report to the authorities. Not only would there be no duty to report a loss or theft because of the absence of a loss or a theft, but the Fifth Amendment specifically prohibits laws requiring anyone to be a witness against himself. Thus, even if an illegal reseller were somehow charged with violating the reporting requirements in conducting an illegal transfer (and I don't see how he could), the case would ultimately have to be thrown out as there criminals cannot be compelled to report their criminal activities to the state. But let's follow this out with a hypothetical. A illegally sells his gun to B. No loss, no theft. Later, the police take the illegal gun from B, who alternatively: OK, assume the police trace the gun back to A, and they go to him. If B admits he bought the gun from A, then there was no theft, and no way to charge A under the theft reporting requirement. If B says nothing connecting the gun to A, then the state would have to establish that either an illegal transfer or a failure to report a theft/loss occurred. But not both, as they are mutually exclusive. What I think is going on here is an attempt to circumvent the Fifth Amendment by creating a legal scenario requiring criminals to report their own crimes. It would be impossible to require the reporting of illegal transfers, though, as that would violate the Fifth Amendment outright, so instead (and I'm being charitable here about their motives), they're trying to fudge by establishing a catch-all provision. The problem is, the reporting requirement involves the reporting of legitimate losses -- and illegal transfers are neither losses nor legitimate. So, true criminals remain exempt from the reporting reporting requirement. There can be no duty to report to the state a loss or a theft that did not occur. The crime can only be committed by law-abiding citizens who lose their guns or are victims of crime. I think this bill is just an attempt to single out guns and gun owners because the proponents don't like them. (Now, if Monica wants to criminalize the failure to report lost wedding rings, I'll be glad to reconsider....) posted by Eric on 04.06.08 at 07:05 PM
Comments
I have a sex angle. How about having to report the loss of virginity. I'll bet you can get every 14 year old boy to report that one. True or not. Of course it could ruin a lot of girls reputations. And the police investigations? Perfect for corrupt cops who moonlight as pedophiles. M. Simon · April 6, 2008 11:22 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2008
March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Sending Signals
A new crime which exempts the criminals it targets! Dangerous pathway Only Hillary can deliver us from victory! A death-defying extravaganza! Trade Is A Two Way Street McCain On Tolerance and Respect Mathmaticious More malignant than smoking? Blogging locally while neglecting globally
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The notion of making it a crime not to report a crime is not exactly unknown. In some states, e.g. CT, stolen license plates are required to be immediately reported to the police. I don't know the penalty, if any. OTOH, you can face serious jail time under federal law if, as a licensed possessor of explosives, you fail to report their theft, which strikes me as closer to the topic under discussion. Gotta say that my offhand opinion is that I'm not much adverse to reporting requirements for that stolen dynamite.