Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
When Bill Peduto talked about fighting crime during his run for mayor last year, he touted a measure he’d supported while on Pittsburgh City Council — a 2008 ordinance requiring gun-owners to report the loss or theft of handguns.
On his campaign website, “Enforcing the Lost and Stolen Gun Laws” was listed as one of Peduto’s 100 Policies to Change Pittsburgh, under a section on “Making Our Streets Safe.” The law was intended to curtail gun violence by targeting illegal gun-trafficking: Felons who are barred from purchasing guns directly sometimes acquire them through “straw purchasers,” who may later claim the gun “disappeared.” As the campaign site explained, “Most guns used to commit crimes were purchased legally and were lost or stolen, eventually ending up in the hands of a criminal. If a gun is lost or stolen, the police should be informed. Aggressively implementing this law gives police tools they need to get illegal guns off the streets.”
Peduto stood by the bill throughout the campaign. In an April 2013 response to the Pittsburgh Black Political Convention, he wrote, “My first order of business as Mayor will be to fully implement the Lost and Stolen Handguns legislation I authored and passed through Council.”
Just days after Peduto was elected mayor in November, he again pledged to enforce the legislation, at a public-action meeting of the Pennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network.
But four months after taking office, no one has been charged under the ordinance. And Peduto tells City Paper that’s unlikely to change.
“If we try it, we’ll be sued, and under present state law, we will probably lose,” Peduto says.
Under the ordinance, individuals who do not report their guns lost or stolen within 24 hours of discovering they are missing can be fined $500 — and $1,000 for each subsequent offense. Peduto wouldn’t entirely rule out fining people: The city “may still try to make a couple cases” down the road, he says. But he says his focus will be on replicating an awareness campaign started in Philadelphia — which also has an unenforced lost-and-stolen ordinance on the books — urging gun-owners to report missing firearms.
Critics of Pittsburgh’s ordinance, though, say Peduto’s shift proves that the bill was never enforceable. Kim Stolfer, chairman of Firearms Owners Against Crime, says the legal landscape hasn’t changed since the law was passed, let alone since Peduto’s 2013 campaign.
During the debate over passing the bill, says Stolfer, “I said it wouldn’t be enforced because it’s illegal. … It’s just as illegal today as it was then.”
Pittsburgh City Council passed lost-and-stolen legislation in December 2008 by a 6-1 vote. It became law in 2009 but was never signed by then-Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. The law has been in limbo ever since. Ravenstahl didn’t enforce it, arguing that Pennsylvania state law prohibits local regulation of legal gun ownership. Nor has the law’s constitutionality ever been decided: Courts have held that, until someone is prosecuted under the ordinance, no one has a legal basis for challenging it.
While precise information on current straw purchasers was not available, police say that they come across such cases every year. And Peduto has previously criticized Ravenstahl’s inaction: In his letter to the Black Political Assembly, Peduto called the ordinance “yet another piece of legislation that has never been implemented by the current administration.”
Some of the ordinance’s original supporters, meanwhile, still say it could be a useful tool.
“I think for Pittsburgh and the other places in the Mon Valley having problems with gun violence, they saw this as a reasonable thing to do,” says former City Councilor Doug Shields, one of the ordinance’s authors. Nor, he says, should the city back down from a court battle.
“If someone wants to bring an action in the court of law, they have every right to do that, and why would you be afraid of that?” Shields says. He argues — as does Peduto — that the ordinance doesn’t infringe on the rights of gun-owners because once a gun is lost or stolen, it is no longer in an owner’s possession. And he says that although Peduto might want to do some additional analysis before moving ahead, “Nobody should be afraid of enforcing a law. … We have to enforce the laws that are already on the books.”
In the past, Peduto has sounded a similar note. “If we as a city were to be sued by the NRA for enforcing the lost-and-stolen handgun [law], I’d welcome that lawsuit,” Peduto said during a January 2013 mayoral debate. “Because if it saved one life, it’s worth the dollars of hiring a few lawyers in order to fight it.”
But today he says, “I thought a common-sense approach to be able to lessen the amount of violence that’s happening throughout the state of Pennsylvania would be welcome in Harrisburg, instead of this ridiculous response that anything that has to do with a gun we must automatically fight.”
When asked why the administration has changed its position on what enforcement of the law will look like, spokesperson Tim McNulty said, “What [Peduto is] doing is finding other ways, in the face of an aggressive state law, to reach the same end result,” which is to get illegal guns off the streets.
City Council President Bruce Kraus, who also helped author the 2008 legislation, agrees. “I believe that our lost-and-stolen legislation is a common-sense approach to addressing one of the root causes of gun violence,” he says, “but the state has effectively kept us and our police from using the crime-fighting tool.”
“I’m working with the police and the mayor to do all we can within the state’s restrictions,” Kraus adds, citing efforts that range “from tracking guns used in crimes to pushing public-education efforts for law-abiding gun owners to self-report when their firearms are lost or stolen.”
Pittsburgh officials aren’t the only ones having second thoughts about lost-and-stolen laws. Thirty municipalities throughout Pennsylvania have passed bills similar to Pittsburgh’s, according to gun-control advocacy group CeasefirePA. Not one of these municipalities has enforced it.
Rob Conroy, Western Pennsylvania director of CeasefirePA, cites fear of litigation as the cause.
“A lot of these communities were scared,” he says. Against an opponent backed by a powerful group like the National Rifle Association, “They could basically be bankrupt from a lawsuit.”
Conroy doesn’t blame municipal leaders for their apprehension, especially since the state legislature is already weighing a measure to make it easier for groups like the NRA to sue. House Bill 2011 would let such organizations sue municipalities who have passed lost-and-stolen gun laws, even if no one has been charged under them. The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee in March and is currently pending in the House.
“This is designed to basically bankrupt the towns that have passed lost-or-stolen laws,” Conroy says. “They’re giving a special-interest group and all their members the power to file a lawsuit.”
But Stolfer, of Firearms Owners Against Crime, says there’s never been a reason to put such laws on the books in the first place.
“These laws have never worked anywhere,” Stolfer says. “It’s of no value to law enforcement. It’s a demonization of the vast majority of the public who own firearms legally.”
There are already laws on the books to punish a gun-owner whose weapon is used in a crime, he says: The lost-and-stolen ordinance was “a political statement,” rather than a measure “meant to increase public safety. It’s a public-relations stunt.”
Some Peduto supporters, however, hold out hope the mayor will enforce the law. In 2011, members of Pennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network marched on Ravenstahl’s office to demand he enforce the legislation. Jane Siegel, who cochairs PIIN’s gun-violence taskforce, says the group isn’t ready to do the same with Peduto.
“What he has said is he’s going to move forward with getting the statute implemented in as timely a way as possible,” says Siegel. “It’s a complicated matter. It’s in the process of happening. He is not doing nothing.”
This article appears in May 14-20, 2014.
one solution to the gun violence could be as simple as the easy access to the bullets. Only licensed gun owners would be able to purchase limited bullets from state stores the same as
booze. Military and police must sign for their allotment of ammo, why not the lisenced gun owners. Stop the sale of bullets at walmart and Dicks sporting goods. We make it too easy to kill on our streets.
wrong how about start by enforcing the current laws and leave law abiding citizens alone
Ella, the issue that arises with your argument, is that in Pennsylvania, there are no licensed gun owners. One can get a license to carry a firearm, which allows them to carry concealed, and also grants other privileges I won’t go into in depth. But why should someone who just has a shotgun for Turkey season have to be limited in their purchase of ammunition? Who is to say what is “limited”. For myself, one trip to the range on the weekend, and I can go through over 500 rounds without even trying hard. As for Walmart and Dicks, and not allowing them to sell ammunition. More people are killed with blunt objects than firearms in the US every year. Should they both also no longer be allowed to carry baseball bats? Or hammers?
Dream on Ella. How come no one has mentioned punish criminals who commit crimes with firearms. The efforts should be to punish criminals, you have shown you can’t out think them.
Ella, what part of “the right to bear arms.. Shall not be infringed” doesn’t compute? Military and police sign for their ammo for inventory control because they don’t directly pay for it. Private citizens do. I’m sure your idea was well-intentioned, but it’s unconstitutional and only hurts law-abiding citizens, who aren’t the ones “killing in the streets”.
ANY LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER IS GOING TO REPORT A LOST OR STOLEN FIREARM RESPONSIBLY AND LAWMAKERS KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. New gun laws WILL NOT deter gun crimes. Criminals will do whatever it takes to harm an individual regardless if it’s a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat. You anti-gun fanatics make me sick as NOTHING else in the world can be used to murder another human being. What about the knives in your kitchen for making supper or the scissors for cutting paper or altering your clothes to fit properly? The shovel you use to dig your garden???? You going to ban all of those as well?????? I could go on and on but I figure “what’s the use”, you people are too stupid to realize that without the “2nd Ammendment” there is NO constitution and you would have NO RIGHTS AT ALL!!!!!!!! YES, I AM A PROUD AMERICAN LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER THAT WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO PROTECT MY FAMILY,FRIENDS,AND ANYONE ELSE IN A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION!!!!!!!!
Wow, what a tour de force of illogic, failed understanding of history, and just flat out misstatements of fact. to wit:
Rich Quinlan writes: “Ella, what part of “the right to bear arms.. Shall not be infringed” MAYBE THE PART YOU CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT‽ You know, the part about state run militias? And please bring up absurd grammatical nonsense about comma placement to highlight the fact that not only do you know understand the history of the amend mane, you don’t understand English grammar either.
Dick Haid writes:
“The efforts should be to punish criminals, you have shown you can’t out think them.” If a law is passed stating that a person who fails to report a gun theft is committing a crime, guess what? They are a criminal, and should be punished. You don’t get to pick and choose. You’re not in any position to be casting aspersions on anyone’s intelligence, Dick.
Chris Faller writes:
“… in Pennsylvania, there are no licensed gun owners.”
Um, nonsense. Hint: writing something onto the internets does not make it so.
“But why should someone who just has a shotgun for Turkey season have to be limited in their purchase of ammunition?” Um, why not. If the only reason you have a gun is for Turkey [sic] season, a limit on your ammo would not have ANY adverse effect. “Who is to say what is ‘limited'”. Um, the State. That is why the Second Amendment is written the way it is.
“For myself, one trip to the range on the weekend, and I can go through over 500 rounds without even trying hard.” So what? What on earth is your point? It certainly has no logical relevance to ANYTHING you wrote preceding it. “As for Walmart and Dicks, and not allowing them to sell ammunition. More people are killed with blunt objects than firearms in the US every year. Should they both also no longer be allowed to carry baseball bats? Or hammers?”
How on earth is that even remotely relevant. Comparative deaths has NO bearing on the issue. Even if it did, this statement is a COMPLETE and utter fabrication. It is, intact, an outright lie, oft posted by the far-rioght gun lobby, and dutifully regurgitated by you, with NO basis in fact. In fact, the published FBI statistics shoe EXACTLY the opposite, namely:
Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%
Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%
While they do not break down “blunt objects into categories, and as such, no number can be ascertained for “baseball bats”, note that even it 100% of “blunt objects” were baseball bats, your statement would STILL be a flat out lie. That’s the problem with parroting bullshit force-fed you by others. No matter what you do to dress it up, it’s still bullshit.
Tony Davenport writes:
“wrong how about start by enforcing the current laws and leave law abiding citizens alone”
Oh, you mean like the law in question?!?
And then there is the piece de resistance, the quintessential example of failed logic and nonsense, the post by Gary Mesina. Not a single thing he wrote, whether in caps of not, has ANY basis in fact, let alone follow logically from what are facts. Ever sentence is either factually inaccurate, flat out wrong, or derived through logical fallacy from other factually devoid statements.
But such is the wont of the ammosexuals with their ammosexual agenda.
read the comments and it has affirmed my belief that that there are a lot of silly people out there. Thank you.
I heart you, Mark Choi!
By the way, The Brady Center for Gun Control offered to defend the city and did all the way through the the victory in PA Commonwealth Court on the fist challenge by the NRA. There would not be any cost to the city to go to Court.