Jump to Content
Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association

Archive for January, 2009

York City Council tables illegal Lost & Stolen firearm reporting requirements

The York City Council on Wednesday tabled a controversial gun proposal at the request of the mayor, despite four council members saying they oppose the legislation.

The proposal, introduced by Councilwoman Toni Smith and backed by York Mayor John Brenner, would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 72 hours.

Councilman Cameron Texter said solicitor Shaleeta Washington gave council an opinion saying it would be best to wait because of a state law that prohibits municipalities from making their own gun laws.

[Via the York Daily Record]


York Daily Record: Lost & Stolen Gun law won’t scare scarecrows

It seems that while the York City Council is having trouble understanding why Lost & Stolen legislation is both ineffective and illegal, the York Daily Record understands clearly:

The Scarecrow wasn’t exactly a genius — that’s why the straw man wanted a brain.

Likewise, it seems that most “straw purchasers” — people who buy guns for bad guys — have heads more full of hay matter than gray matter.

And so you have to wonder: Does York city really need a complicated new law to torch them?

That’s the question before the York City Council next week. Members are scheduled to vote on an ordinance requiring people to report lost or stolen guns within 72 hours after they discover them missing.

Maybe that seems like common sense — hardly the kind of thing you’d need a law for. Good citizens who have legally purchased firearms would be foolish not to call police if their guns are stolen. That’s just what you do when something gets stolen.

But should it be illegal to fail to do so? Should we run the risk of criminalizing people who, say, have a gun stolen, perhaps by “friends” or family members, who don’t even know their weapons are missing, if they fail to report the loss or theft?

Isn’t that a little like victimizing the victim?

Hopefully such common sense will be contagious.

[Via InYork.com]


Heller Effect: S.F. Housing Authority agrees to let tenants own guns

The San Francisco Housing Authority has agreed to allow its residents to own guns in a settlement of a National Rifle Association lawsuit that followed last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.

In papers filed Monday with a federal judge, the Housing Authority agreed not to enforce a provision it added to tenant leases in 2005 prohibiting the possession of guns and ammunition. The ban will now apply only to illegal gun ownership, like possession of a machine gun or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

[Via San Francisco Chronicle]


York City Council Considering Illegal Lost & Stolen Firearm Reporting Legislation

The York City Council will take up an issue Tuesday that municipalities throughout the state have been dealing with: lost and stolen firearms.

The council will hold a committee meeting to discuss a proposed law that would require owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 72 hours. York Mayor John Brenner, a member of PA Mayors for Gun Safety, backs the proposal, which was introduced in November.

The city council meeting is at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 13th.

[Via York Daily Record]


One-Gun-a-Month in New Jersey

Some of you may have noticed this editorial over at The Philadelphia Inquirer declaring the imminent passage of “One-gun-a-month” rationing scheme in The Garden State, and admonishing Harrisburg to follow Trenton’s lead.  There are two problems with this editorial.

One, it assumes that this law to ration gun ownership is effective at its stated purpose, which is to reduce illegal gun trafficking.  We know from other states that have passed it, that it has now been shown to do any such thing.  South Carolina had a long standing gun rationing scheme, which is repealed because there was no evidence that it was effective.  Multiple sales are already reported to the BATF and local law enforcement, so if these types of purchases are really a problem, more laws aren’t the solution.

The other mistake is to assume that passage of gun rationing in New Jersey is inevitable.  It is not.  You get a hint of that here:

That effort deserves the full support of lawmakers from South Jersey, including Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester). But Sweeney is not yet on board with the proposal, and seems to be quoting from the NRA’s bullet points about the need to enforce existing gun regulations more fully.

This reveals the Inquirer’s true intention in publishing this editorial, which is to publicly shame Senator Sweeney into signing on to Bryan Miller’s gun rationing scheme.  The reason they have to do this is because they are coming up short on votes in the New Jersey State Senate to get this latest restriction on Second Amendment rights passed.  I would encourage everyone to send a note to Senator Sweeney to thank him for standing up for your rights.  If you’re a New Jersey resident, the critical time is now for contacting your Senators and State Assemblymen.

There is a very real chance of stopping a gun control bill in New Jersey.  Only a few years ago, Bryan Miller could ask the New Jersey legislature to jump, and they would ask “How High?”  Now they are starting to ask questions.  This is critical for both Pennsylvania and New Jersey residents.  For New Jersey residents, it’s the first step in reversing a long decline in gun rights that’s happened since 1968.  For Pennsylvanians, it’s a chance to ensure that Bryan Miller, and the full resources of the New Jersey Gun Control movement are tied up fighting in Trenton, rather than in Harrisburg.  We will both benefit from this win, but we must keep the pressure on.


North Dakota has 0 gun murders in 2008, Brady Campaign group claims need for gun control

As 2008 came to a close, the North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem announced that there were only 2 murders in North Dakota in 2008, and both of them involved stabbings. The irony of this is that the Brady Campaign’s Profile of North Dakota gives them a 4 out of 100 points for “gun control”, basically meaning they think North Dakota needs a whole lot more of it. It must be difficult to keep a straight face when working at the Brady Campaign, knowing that your numbers mean pretty much the opposite of what you intend.


Metal detector on hold while West Mifflin officials study law

Plans to install a metal detector at the entrance to West Mifflin council chambers appear to be temporarily on hold while borough officials investigate the legality of such an action.

Metal detector on hold while West Mifflin officials study law.