Unconstitutional? So what, we're doing it anyways.

Depends on intent, I guess. A Strawman purchase by definition is a crime, because it is the intent of the purchaser from the beginning, to turn around and sell the gun to someone that they know cannot legally purchase a firearm....so in this case, the person is knowingly committing a crime.

If someone sold their gun to someone else in good faith, not knowing that the buyer could not legally own a gun, and then that person turns around and uses it in a crime, then the seller committed no crime.

I would think so...to a point...but that's just me. I wouldn't sell a firearm to anyone I didn't know personally, and could vouch for.

Wow. Your mind works funny. You picture a guy sitting on a rifle???

What is it with you fuckers asking a question, and then getting all pissy when I honestly answer it?

If you want to throw shit, go ahead and throw shit.

But quit wasting my time by pretending like you want to actually have a discussion.

Took you 5 pages to come to that conclusion?

It's not mandatory unless the owner loses the firearm or has it stolen. Which I'm guessing happens in .1 percent of gun owners or less.

OK, assuming this is correct, is this law a constitutional amendment?

Because if not, this Pittsburgh deal would be illegal but not unconstitutional.

Indeed, it might be the state law that is unconstitutional if it infringes on Pittsburgh's ability for home rule, much like the federal government can only go so far in telling individual states what to do.

The question I had was whether the state says the city isn't allowed to do it under its constitution. I didn't see anything in quickly skimming its constitution, linked above, that would prevent this ordinance.

It would create a disincentive for Person A to sell to Person B who he knows is a crook, or suspects to be a crook.

Right now, Person A can sell to Person B under the table and only worry about Person B if Person B commits a crime and gets caught and/or the police are able to determine that the gun was linked to Person A. Even then Person A can plead ignorance of how Person B ended up with the gun by saying the gun was lost or stolen at some point prior.

If this law passes, Person A might think twice about selling Person B that gun. If B does do something sketchy with it, then A no longer has the excuse that the gun was lost/stolen. A will face a crime if he hasn't reported the gun lost/stolen originally. If A tries to do an under-the-table sale and files a report immediately thereafter that the gun was lost or stolen, he runs the risk that if B is caught B will point out that there was an under-the-table sale, that the authorities might believe B and arrest A for filing a false police report.

And if the As of the world become more likely to not sell to the Bs of the world, that would tend to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands.

Obviously, some people will continue to sell to sketchy people and there are going to be other means for criminals to get guns no matter what laws are passed. That doesn't mean the laws themselves are necessarily bad.

Why do you bother engaging the guy? It is obvious he knows jack about the topic.

So, if someone sells their gun in good faith, and that gun is subsequently used in a crime, is the seller held responsible?

If that's true, then I can sorta see where the worry is coming from.

But, if all he has to say is, "hey, I didn't know his wife was banging someone else and he bought the gun to shoot her", what's the problem?

Owning up to a mistake is one of those things that fall under 'personal responsibility'.

And if all responsible, law abiding citizens felt this way, then the law would not be affecting law abiding citizens in any way.

I'm bad about giving people the benefit of the doubt I guess.

Not criminally, no.

I suppose they could be open to a civil suit though.

ok. I'll buy that as a 'con' to this law.

I heard a lot of southern mugs trade their guns for beer and moonshine sometimes.

Looking back at previous actions and saying 'in hindsight, that was a mistake' is not the same thing as saying 'knowing full well what one is doing in the present is wrong'.

I support this law. In fact, I think any time anything that could possibly be used in a commission of a crime - including blunt objects, pointy objects, heavy objects, money, car keys, anything that could be used for identity theft including when you throw a paid bill in the trash... pretty much everything but Fisher-Price toys recommended for children under three years of age - is lost or stolen, it should be reported to the police. This will inundate the police station with paperwork, and pretty much stop them from getting anything done.

But these half measures are just no good.

Don't most people report ALL items stolen when their house or person is robbed?

Really? Who told you that Homie the Clown?

Among others.

(you forgot the comma)

You report your car keys missing when you can't find them one morning?

In this exchange, I'm Bud and you're Lou. Proceed.

Who's on first?

Outside of Federally controlled NFA devices (suppressors, fully-automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, "destructive devices" etc.), we have no registration and I'm wholeheartedly and emphatically against registration. Again, throughout the 800+ year history of the firearm, registration has historically been the first step in confiscation.

And, I think it's important to note that the vast and overwhelming majority of gun control laws target otherwise law abiding gun owners and turn them into criminals. For instance, the very first "gun control" law passed in the United States was a law to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves who banded together to defend themselves from the KKK.

Ain't government meddling grand?

I love it!

You love having your people brutalized by the KKK?

I love how the twisted law was straightened out and then applied across the board to include de white folk.

I agree completely.

Apostle, no pithy comeback?

misery loves company huh? Since you are only capable of making stupid non~sensical posts you hope others will as well?

My only comeback is that when they start infringing on your rights regarding something I feel is stupid, I hope you keep your damn mouth shut.

When they pass some law to keep whitey down and then it backfires and impacts me, you got it.

It's not unconstitutional.

It's illegal since it violates state law.

To be unconsititutional they would have to pass a law that violates their own state constitution. In this case they onlyu passed a local law that violates state law.

Your argument will get much further if you'd drop the whole Constitutional bit.