Hit this Phone Poll re Proposed Ordinance to Require Reporting Loss or Theft of Handguns!

imported post

The requirement is absurd - anyone who fails to report can assert a Fifth Amendment defense to not answering questions about their gun - furhter, the requirement violates the PA Uniform Firearms Act' preemption providion at Section 6120 as well as its ban on registration (being forced to fess up to previous ownership is of course registration).

---

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4219





Pennsylvania: Lancaster Intelligencer Journal - Telephone Poll PEOPLE POLL: REPORTING LOST OR STOLEN HANDGUNS



Thursday, October 23, 2008




[align=left]The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal is taking a telephone poll concerning the latest activity from Mayors from across the state pushing anti-gun ordinances requiring the mandatory reporting of lost or stolen handguns.

These ordinances are in direct violation of Pennsylvania's preemption law. State preemption regulating firearms was enacted by the legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. Without preemption there would be a myriad of local firearm laws making compliance impossible for law-abiding gun owners.

Please call the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal People Poll today and voice your opinion. Calls will be received until 6p.m. Friday.[/align]
[align=center]1-866-346-7655
PRESS 2# TO VOTE NO![/align]

imported post

I would not report if it was lost, but stolen, hell yes I would report it. My husband and I are going thru that now. It was my Beretta 9mm Inox. He was at home asleep on the other side of the house when the burglury occured. The gun was recovered 3 hrs later. It had not been used in any crime and was clean at the time taken and at recovery.

Getting it back is proving to be a nightmare. I keep hearing 'it's in the lab still'. I am pissed at the delay of stories we are getting. $500 in ammo will not released back to us due to some law. Can you say 'inside someone's locker?'

We are the victims being inconvienced andfeeling like we are inan invasion of our rights. I see no reason for all the testing at the lab. It was not used while out of our possession.

imported post

thewigs3 wrote:

We are the victims being inconvienced andfeeling like we are inan invasion of our rights. I see no reason for all the testing at the lab. It was not used while out of our possession.

Click to expand...

'The Lab' wouldn't tell them anything anyway... There is nothing they can 'test' that is applicable to any form of law enforcement. But they need to pretend there is to justify 'ballistic fingerprinting' and other pie-in-the-sky crapola...

If you can get a copy of your 4473, take yourself down there and tell them to return your property, here's the proof, and don't take no for an answer.

I got the same run-arround when my P89 was stolen in Pinellas County, FL. Oh, it was stolen BY a Deputy, ha! I showed them my 4473 (proof of ownership), and the run around came to an abrupt halt.

They refused to give me my ammo back too.... And they kept one of the mags (got back 3 of 4).

I told them I had a case of 1000rnds in the trunk anyway. ;-) Everyone in the ofice came outside to watch me get in the car and leave. Ha!

Same also went for one of my friends who was assaulted by a Body Builder on who knows what assortment of hormones and drugs. My friend shot him with his AK-47, while in his own home. They held it 'as evidence' even though no charges were filed against either party (Assistant SA knew it wouldn't serve a purpose and would be a waste of his limited time)... So, evidence for what? Copy of 4473, rifle went home in under 2 minutes.

Of course, this is Florida, YMMV. Hope it helps.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

If you can get a copy of your 4473, take yourself down there and tell them to return your property, here's the proof, and don't take no for an answer.

I got the same run-arround when my P89 was stolen in Pinellas County, FL. Oh, it was stolen BY a Deputy, ha! I showed them my 4473 (proof of ownership), and the run around came to an abrupt halt.

Click to expand...

But a 4473 is not "proof of ownership," only evidence of a dealer recorded transfer.

imported post

It worked well enough. Twice. LEOs don't know the law, don't we know that already? ;-) If it gets your stuff back, do it!

imported post

I have my firearms listed on my home owners Insurance-To be reimbursed incase of a theft I have to report if one has been stolen and have a copy of the incident report with serial number listed, since my firearms are getting old andsince I like them they will be reported quickly!

Never have "LOST" a firearm yet!! Not only do they afford protection but also "FOOD" for the table.

imported post

The 4473 is a transactional record that shows the transfer of ownership from the FFL to the individual or other entity. It does not prove ownership, only tranfer from one party to another.

For the department I work for ownership of real property is generally accomplished via certain ways...title, deed, or some other "individually indentifiying" manner. The best manner is through the recording of some descriptive item on the property. For firearms this would be the serial number and a notarized statement from the complainant. A brief written description of the property and some individually identifying mark is generally all that is needed.

Real property is covered under a specific law called the Statute of Frauds. The is where items are covered by a specific contract. One may be wise to use the Statute of Frauds process to prove ownership of their individual firearm.

As far as the recoveringof your firearm after it is located post being stolen or used in the crime, the item is technically under the pervue of the the court having "original jurisdiction" of the case. Simply put, the police may not be able to legally give the firearm back to the owner until all judicial processes have been ceased. The preciding judge makes the call in this instance. Having been a police officer for quite some time I can tell you what usually happens is the firearm is confirmed as evidence and then admitted to the court. The claimant then can ask the judge to release the property. Now, if there is an ongoing trial, especially a felony trial, the judge probably is not going to release your property until it's evidentiary value has been exhausted...i.e., court is over and the appeals processes have been concluded. If the suspect pleads guilty the item will be summarily returned to you as quickly as possible. If the process leads to lengthy court processes and appeals, then it may be a while until the court releases your item...honestly, and you may not like this, but the item is not yours to use as you see fit until it is released by the court. The judge makes this decision and the law provides for WIDE latitude in his descretion. He or she could keep your property as a court required evidence for a LONG time if the process involves a homicide or any other type of first or second degree felonious action.

David

imported post

dlofton wrote:

The 4473 is a transactional record that shows the transfer of ownership from the FFL to the individual or other entity. It does not prove ownership, only tranfer from one party to another.

For the department I work for ownership of real property is generally accomplished via certain ways...title, deed, or some other "individually indentifiying" manner. The best manner is through the recording of some descriptive item on the property. For firearms this would be the serial number and a notarized statement from the complainant. A brief written description of the property and some individually identifying mark is generally all that is needed.

Real property is covered under a specific law called the Statute of Frauds. The is where items are covered by a specific contract. One may be wise to use the Statute of Frauds process to prove ownership of their individual firearm.

As far as the recoveringof your firearm after it is located post being stolen or used in the crime, the item is technically under the pervue of the the court having "original jurisdiction" of the case. Simply put, the police may not be able to legally give the firearm back to the owner until all judicial processes have been ceased. The preciding judge makes the call in this instance. Having been a police officer for quite some time I can tell you what usually happens is the firearm is confirmed as evidence and then admitted to the court. The claimant then can ask the judge to release the property. Now, if there is an ongoing trial, especially a felony trial, the judge probably is not going to release your property until it's evidentiary value has been exhausted...i.e., court is over and the appeals processes have been concluded. If the suspect pleads guilty the item will be summarily returned to you as quickly as possible. If the process leads to lengthy court processes and appeals, then it may be a while until the court releases your item...honestly, and you may not like this, but the item is not yours to use as you see fit until it is released by the court. The judge makes this decision and the law provides for WIDE latitude in his descretion. He or she could keep your property as a court required evidence for a LONG time if the process involves a homicide or any other type of first or second degree felonious action.

David

Click to expand...

Interesting David. Maybe you could help us poke into the apparent difficulty gun woners improlery accused of unlawful carry in wisconsin have in getting their guns back at some point - there are reports that judges refuse to give them their guns back even after no charges are brought or the prosecution ends without there being any statutory penalty for loss of firearm.

imported post

I'm not attempting to refute this, because I know it's true.

I'm just saying that it worked. You miss all the shots you don't take.

imported post

Please don't just give us annecdotal statements about how there have been reports in Wisconsin of judges refusing to return weapons....give us case #, respondent names, and preferably cause #'s. This way we can see for ourselves if this is really true. The sad problem is that it probably is true. I don't condone this but it probably does happen. LEOs an judges are just like everyone else. They sometimes make dumb decisions that are not based on fact or law. Hell, I know that I am dang sure guilty of making stupid decisions. I will not be throwing the first stone. But to that end please don't make the mistake of thinking that peace officers stay up at night seriously contemplating ways to violate 42 USC 1983. Most of us are not that bored and have better things to do.

David

imported post

Hmm, I wonder if this poll had an impact:

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/229425


City Council tables handgun ordinance


Intelligencer Journal
Published: Oct 29, 2008



By JENNIFER TODD, Staff Writer

A proposed Lancaster city ordinance requiring gun owners to notify authorities of lost or stolen handguns within 72 hours has been put on hold.

City Council voted Tuesday to table the bill after Mayor Rick Gray said similar laws approved in other cities in the state are currently being challenged in Commonwealth Court.

Gray said he believes the best course would be to hold off on the proposal pending the outcome of the litigation.

At issue is whether ordinances enacted at local levels preempted — or superseded — state gun laws. The state constitution includes a pre-emption clause prohibiting local governments from creating their own gun laws.

Last month, a state court rejected a claim by Philadelphia City Council that gun-control measures it passed in 2007 were not pre-empted by the state Uniform Firearms Act.

Arguments in a second case, in which the National Rifle Association is challenging a portion of the measures, are set to get under way in state court Nov. 12, Gray said.

"Right now there's a lot of confusion, and I feel it's prudent for Council to hold off on this to see where things end up," Gray said. "We certainly don't want to move ahead with something we're unsure about."

But if it is found that the issue of gun control lies solely with the state, then legislators need to take action, Gray said.




"The bottom line is, the state should have the guts to stand up and do something," Gray said. "To not act is cowardly."


Gray said the proposed firearms bill is not dead and he will continue to fight for local gun-control measures until the state steps up to the plate.

The proposed ordinance was developed to target "straw" purchases, which happen when a person who can legally purchase a gun buys one for a convicted criminal who is not permitted to own a firearm.

Violation of the ordinance would carry a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and/or 90 days in jail.

Also Tuesday, a public hearing for the transfer of a liquor license to Lancaster city from Pequea Township was continued until Council's next meeting so the applicant could obtain additional information regarding alleged violations.

Clara and Timothy Behmer want to open Tucker's Sports Bar at 701 N. Prince St. (also known as 45-47 W. New St.), where they currently operate the Green Briar Cafe. The couple lost their previous license in non-alcohol-related litigation last year and have been operating the establishment on a bring-your-own-bottle basis.

Kim Draude testified during the hearing that she is currently involved in litigation with the Behmers for the property. Draude also testified that there are several Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board violations on file against the Behmers and she believes they should not be given another license.

Clara Behmer acknowledged two PLCB violations but disputed the others. City Council voted to continue the hearing until its next meeting on Nov. 11 so Behmer can obtain information on the alleged violations.

E-mail: jtodd@lnpnews.com
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/229425

imported post

dlofton wrote:

Please don't just give us annecdotal statements about how there have been reports in Wisconsin of judges refusing to return weapons....give us case #, respondent names, and preferably cause #'s. This way we can see for ourselves if this is really true. The sad problem is that it probably is true. I don't condone this but it probably does happen. LEOs an judges are just like everyone else. They sometimes make dumb decisions that are not based on fact or law. Hell, I know that I am dang sure guilty of making stupid decisions. I will not be throwing the first stone. But to that end please don't make the mistake of thinking that peace officers stay up at night seriously contemplating ways to violate 42 USC 1983. Most of us are not that bored and have better things to do.

David

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=17128&forum_id=57&highlight=california

Notice of Hearing

Case No. 2008GF000111

This case is scheduled for: Return of Property hearing

11-21-2008

1:30 P.M.

Kevin E. Martens-27, Judge

Safety Building - Room 310

Room 310

821 West State Street

Milwaukee, WI 53233-1425

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail...10F691B89FCFE733961D22&recordCount=1&offset=0