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.

You'd call the cops if your car was stolen, wouldn't you? You'd file a report if the wife misplaced her wedding ring. Why not expect the same if a Glock goes missing?

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.

"While it may have been politically expedient to 'go with the crowd' on this one," O'Brien wrote, "that has never been my style."

To him, making it a crime not to report a crime would "cast an overbroad net" ensnaring the innocent.

That, he couldn't stomach.

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.

"It's not like we have an epidemic of people losing their guns," Harper said. "If the real problem is a guy in North Philly claiming his gun was stolen only after it's used in a crime, focus on that."

Meaning if the lost-and-stolen effort is really about scaring people out of becoming straw buyers, then target them, not the little old lady who forgets to tell the cops she gave Grandpa's gun to her son.

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:

won't say where he got it,

says he "bought it off the street" from persons unknown; or

admits he got it from A.

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....)