If your firearm is stolen in Hartford, CT ...

J

jimpeel

New member
... you have 72 hours to discover it is missing and report it. Otherwise, you will be fined or jailed. So according to this law, all persons must check on the whereabouts of their firearms at least every 72 hours to ascertain if it is still where they left it.

How many times have you had something grow legs and the last time you saw it was months ago? "It was here the last time I looked here; and now it's gone." will be no excuse for those who fail to check their firearms every 72 hours. The law does not state that one must report the missing firearm within 72 hours of the discovery that it is missing.

So, let's say that your nephew steals your firearm on Saturday, and uses it in a crime on Wednesday, and the first you know that it is missing is when the knock comes on your door on Friday. You are an "illegal gun trafficker" pursuant to the law.

I hate it when politicians pass laws for no other reason than to show "We're doing something."

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hr/hc-guns0228.artfeb28,0,5352180.story

City Officials Back Handgun Bill

February 28, 2007

By TINA A. BROWN, Courant Staff Writer Hartford's top officials rallied behind a legislative bill Tuesday that could require the state's 132,000 handgun owners and dealers to report a loss or stolen firearm within 72 hours or risk criminal charges.

The bill, being discussed by the legislature's judiciary committee, is intended to stop illegal gun traffickers from falsely claiming their firearms had been lost or stolen if the guns are found to have been used in a crime. Gun owners "should be just as accountable as the person who pulls the trigger," said Lisa Labella, co-executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts, and community activists Lorenzo Jones, Lee Hunt and Henry Brown joined Labella Tuesday at a press conference at the Johnson-Stewart Community Center. They kicked off a so-called Red Flag public awareness campaign aimed at getting the public to ask, "Where did they get the gun?" each time a gun crime is committed.

"We want to raise a red flag about the second crime - the crime of gun trafficking," Labella said during a telephone interview.

Perez, an advocate for getting illegal guns off the streets of Hartford, supports the bill.

Jones, executive director of A Better Way Foundation, a lobbyist group, said during a telephone interview that his group partnered with Connecticut Against Gun Violence because "it's not enough to arrest the shooter of the gun. We've got to go after the traffickers, and stop guns from coming into Hartford in the first place. They don't sell guns in Hartford. The city has no legal gun shops."

The Hartford Police Department reported 197 shooting victims in 2006, an 11.3 percent increase over the previous year, according to city records. City police data show 272 people were arrested on gun charges in 2006, a 28.3 percent increase over the previous year.

Roberts said in a prepared statement that 500 guns were seized in 2006. Assigned teams of gun detectives around the city are working to confiscate illegal guns.

He could not be reached Tuesday for comment.

When a gun used in a crime can be traced, police usually have no way to punish registered owners who may have traded their guns for drugs or sold them to a convicted felon because those owners typically say the gun was stolen, Labella said.

If the bill becomes law, gun owners who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within 72 hours would be fined for the first offense; charged with a misdemeanor for the second offense; and charged with a Class D felony for the third offense, Labella said.

"This gives police a tool to track the weapon. We are trying to go after people who buy guns legally and sell them to people who aren't supposed to have them. We need to stop the flow of illegal gun traffickers," Labella said.

Ashley Varner, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said she could not respond to the specifics of the 72-hour-reporting bill, but the organization "opposes the spirit of bills like this that penalize innocent people. The spirit behind it puts the burden on the person who is a victim of theft and should be placed on the thief," she said.

"We shouldn't put further burdens on law-abiding citizens," Varner said.

Similar presentations by Connecticut Against Gun Violence are scheduled next month in New Haven and Bridgeport.

Contact Tina A. Brown at tabrown@courant.com.
Click to expand...
 
How many times have you had something grow legs and the last time you saw it was months ago? "It was here the last time I looked here; and now it's gone." will be no excuse for those who fail to check their firearms every 72 hours.
Click to expand...

If you don't know where your firearms are at all times, you should think twice about having them.
 
If you don't know where your firearms are at all times, you should think twice about having them.
Click to expand...

Within 72 hours of what, being stolen or discovering they are missing. No way to prove the 'discovery' bit. I may have not even noticed until the law knocks on my door asking about it.
72 hours of being stolen means that if I go on vacation, come home a couple of weeks or a month later to find I have been a victim of a burglary, I'm automatically a criminal. I don't think this one will stand the scrutiny of the courts.
 
I live in CT. and we certainly have a problem when it comes to "stolen" firearms being used in crimes. Contrary to common belief, CT. is much more than pine-cones and porche's.

IMO, it's not as bad as it appears:

If the bill becomes law, gun owners who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within 72 hours would be fined for the first offense; charged with a misdemeanor for the second offense; and charged with a Class D felony for the third offense,

In the majority of cases, IMO, if someone has a firearm stolen more than once I feel there should be some consequences.

Like the rest of the current "gun-control" laws, it will likely have liitle effect on the streets. If a BG wants a firearm, they will get one, one way or another. From personal past experience I knew people that had illegaly obtained firearms and in those cases they were obtained out of state.

Still, the mind-set alone gives me one more reason to get out of this screwed-up state.
 
If you don't know where your firearms are at all times, you should think twice about having them.
Click to expand...
Seriously. It's a deadly weapon, not your car keys. Keep track of it.

If you can't find the time every three days or so to make sure all your guns are still there, you should own less. Especially since the bulk of them should be in some sort of safe/locked case anyway, right? It's not like in the military where you need to match serial numbers either...how long can it take to simply count your guns?
IMO, it's not as bad as it appears:
If the bill becomes law, gun owners who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within 72 hours would be fined for the first offense; charged with a misdemeanor for the second offense; and charged with a Class D felony for the third offense,

In the majority of cases, IMO, if someone has a firearm stolen more than once without reporting it immediately I feel there should be some consequences.
Click to expand...
Fixed that last part for you...I'm hoping that's what you meant. Being a victim of a crime more than once should not be a crime, but failing to be a responsible gun owner more than once should be.
Like the rest of the current "gun-control" laws, it will likely have liitle effect on the streets. If a BG wants a firearm, they will get one, one way or another. From personal past experience I knew people that had illegaly obtained firearms and in those cases they were obtained out of state.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. You can theoretically make it more difficult for a criminal to get his hands on a gun...thus raising the bar and preventing less motivated bad guys who might otherwise have gotten ahold of one from doing so. The key is to do so without placing undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. I don't think forcing some level of accountability for one's firearms qualifies as an undue burden. I think I agree with the spirit of this law, though I'm sure if I pored over it I'd find issue with some of the particulars. For instance:
72 hours of being stolen means that if I go on vacation, come home a couple of weeks or a month later to find I have been a victim of a burglary, I'm automatically a criminal. I don't think this one will stand the scrutiny of the courts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's definitely an issue.


One other quote I found interesting...
The Article said:
They don't sell guns in Hartford. The city has no legal gun shops.
Click to expand...
So I'll go ahead and scratch Hartford off of my list of cities I'd ever consider moving to.
 
Yes JC that what I was implying, ty.

In response to deadin's post:

If someone was going away on vaction, what reason would there be to leave a firearm where it could be stolen? How much common sense is needed to realize it should be locked away and hidden as well as possible? If someone doesn't posses the I.Q. to realize this, I dont feel they should be allowed to own a firearm in the first place. I just dont understand the logic behind that. Just M.O.

Also, the first time such an incidnet happens one isn't branded a criminal, merely fined. Even if it happens a second time it is only a misdemeanor. If it happens a third, somethings fishy.

IMO, this is one dog thats bark is worse than bite. I dont support any form of gun control ( as it relates to the average law abiding citizen) personally but I can understand the reasoning behind this one .

P.S. There are plenty of reason to not move to Hartford and sadly that is one of the lesser. :eek:
 
If someone was going away on vaction, what reason would there be to leave a firearm where it could be stolen? How much common sense is needed to realize it should be locked away and hidden as well as possible? If someone doesn't posses the I.Q. to realize this, I dont feel they should be allowed to own a firearm in the first place. I just dont understand the logic behind that. Just M.O.
Click to expand...

Firearms safes aren't fool-proof. If you're gone for a week it's more than possible for a firearm to be stolen from your home no matter how secure it is. At that point your only option to guarantee accountability would be to check all your firearms in with some sort of third party, who would sign for and accept responsibility for them. This is not entirely reasonable.

However, by not doing so under this law you risk a fine. If you travel often on business and don't have family at home, it's entirely possible this could happen twice, at which point you risk more.

Like I said, I don't disagree with the intent of the law, I just think it needs tweaking.
 
how long can it take to simply count your guns?
Click to expand...

If you've got 300 plus guns, each stored in its own box and spread out over a half dozen or so safes, it actually can take quite a while to inventory them.

If someone doesn't posses the I.Q. to realize this, I dont feel they should be allowed to own a firearm in the first place
Click to expand...

I probably should be insulted but I guess I'm to dumb to realize it.:barf:

Also, the first time such an incidnet happens one isn't branded a criminal, merely fined.
Click to expand...

Then I can expect you not to squeal like a stuck pig if it happens to you.
 
f you've got 300 plus guns, each stored in its own box and spread out over a half dozen or so safes, it actually can take quite a while to inventory them.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying you have to do that every 72 hours, only when you suspect that something has changed. There are lots of tell tale signs of a break-in.. rarely is it the case that someone breaks in, takes a gun, locks the door behind him and you are completely unaware.

Yes, you should have to go through the process of inventorying your guns when you realize that there has been a break-in.

I'll repeat what I said before: you should think twice about having a gun if you cannot take the responsibility of knowing their location.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a gun, merely that it should be a conscious act to pay attention.
 
Yes, who is to say when the clock starts... What if U have guns picked up and U don't notice it for a while....
Click to expand...

If the crime was committed 72 hours ago, and by the time the police come knocking you still haven't reported it, you're hosed. Aside from that, it'd probably be the word of the criminal against yours (if he claims to have had it for more than 72 hours).

Though if it was taken in a burglary, and that burglary happened over 72 hours ago, and you didn't bother to check...again, you may be hosed.

Nobody is saying you have to do that every 72 hours, only when you suspect that something has changed. There are lots of tell tale signs of a break-in.. rarely is it the case that someone breaks in, takes a gun, locks the door behind him and you are completely unaware.
Click to expand...

True. And as long as the safes show no sign of tampering, and nobody else has the combo (such as other members of the household), then you can probably get by with a quick spot check. Count boxes, maybe even just open it to make sure everything looks alright. With half a dozen safes (as the other poster mentioned) you could probably get away with checking one or two safes a week, and simply checking the other five for tampering. Again, if this is too much work for you I'd question whether you need to own 300 guns. But that's the kind of thing that'll probably get me yelled at around here. :p

Maybe it's just too much time spent in the military, where firearms need to be accounted for 24/7.

At that point you'd pretty much just have to inventory all your firearms that aren't in safes on a regular (twice a week) basis.

If you get organized and follow a system (possibly involving some filing/paperwork/computer use) it really shouldn't be difficult. Getting the system up and running would be a bit of a chore, but maintaining shouldn't take that much time on a weekly basis. Might seem like a lot of extra work to keep track of a collection...but again, they're deadly weapons, not coins or stamps. If you aren't willing to put some effort into keeping track of them, own less.
 
Ejjr

If someone was going away on vaction, what reason would there be to leave a firearm where it could be stolen? How much common sense is needed to realize it should be locked away and hidden as well as possible? If someone doesn't posses the I.Q. to realize this, I dont feel they should be allowed to own a firearm in the first place. I just dont understand the logic behind that. Just M.O.
Click to expand...

The first question I always ask when someone suggests that a firearm should be locked up, ala "safe storage" laws, etc., is: "Why is it that the lock on my front door is not considered a lock on my firearm?"

The second question is "Can you name any other piece of property you own that is required to be locked away in a secondary manner like firearms are?"

The answer to the first question is that firearms are the only piece of property that you own that is somehow sacrosanct; and the rest of what you own is fair game. There is an implication ingrained in this that legitimatizes the burglary or theft of all your property as long as your firearm is not one of those items. "Take it all but leave that one item."

Your car can do great damage as evidenced by the farmer's market slaughter a couple of years ago when a car drove through a crowd for a block and a half. There is, however, no law that you have to lock up your car in a separate enclosure. The door and ignition locks are considered to be a sufficient lock on your deadly car.

By the by, I don't run around counting my cars either.
 
By the by, I don't run around counting my cars either.
Click to expand...

How tall is the grass in your yard? (sensing a "you might be a redneck if..." joke here) :D

Can you name any other piece of property you own that is required to be locked away in a secondary manner like firearms are?
Click to expand...

Pesticides* and other poisons. Medications are required to have child safety caps. Oxygen / Acetylene tanks..


* There are definitely regulations in how stores can store them, not sure if there are any one they reach your home, though.
 
The second question is "Can you name any other piece of property you own that is required to be locked away in a secondary manner like firearms are?"

The answer to the first question is that firearms are the only piece of property that you own that is somehow sacrosanct; and the rest of what you own is fair game. There is an implication ingrained in this that legitimatizes the burglary or theft of all your property as long as your firearm is not one of those items. "Take it all but leave that one item."

Your car can do great damage as evidenced by the farmer's market slaughter a couple of years ago when a car drove through a crowd for a block and a half. There is, however, no law that you have to lock up your car in a separate enclosure. The door and ignition locks are considered to be a sufficient lock on your deadly car.
Click to expand...

Your firearm(s) are probably the only piece(s) of property in your house whose primary purpose is to cause injury or death to other living beings. It's also probably one of the only items whose sale is heavily restricted to criminals, the same criminals who are obviously more likely to break into your house and thus have greater incentive to steal firearms.

A thief can take your stereo or your wife's diamond earrings, but they are unlikely to use those items in the commission of another crime; more specifically, to threaten or inflict grievous bodily harm to another human being in the commission of a crime. Your car comes close, but while it can be dangerous that is not its primary function; it's primary function is as a conveyance. And a criminal is unlikely to steal your car with the intent of using it to run over or threaten to run over somebody else...no so for a firearm. Plus, criminals can just buy cars...many cannot just buy firearms. So the two (your car vs. your gun(s)) are not quite analogous.

That said, I'm not a fan of safe storage laws; I think safe storage laws are a deterrent to keeping firearms accessible and ready (at which point what's the purpose of having any for home defense?)...but I do see the reasoning behind them.

Regardless, this law has nothing to do with safe storage laws. It is not a crime to have a firearm stolen, at least from what I read. It's a crime not to report having a firearm stolen. The point being to keep "stolen" (as in, not stolen) firearms from being resold illegally.
 
A thief can take your stereo or your wife's diamond earrings, but they are unlikely to use those items in the commission of another crime; more specifically, to threaten or inflict grievous bodily harm to another human being in the commission of a crime.
Click to expand...

He can fence them and buy a firearm. Why don't we make a law that anything a thief can steal to buy a firearm should be locked up. We all know that the only way to keep us all safe is to lock us all up.

That said, I'm not a fan of safe storage laws; I think safe storage laws are a deterrent to keeping firearms accessible and ready (at which point what's the purpose of having any for home defense?)...but I do see the reasoning behind them.
Click to expand...

The Carpenters likely don't see the reasoning behind them. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29226
 
A thief can take your stereo or your wife's diamond earrings, but they are unlikely to use those items in the commission of another crime; more specifically, to threaten or inflict grievous bodily harm to another human being in the commission of a crime.
Click to expand...
He can fence them and buy a firearm. Why don't we make a law that anything a thief can steal to buy a firearm should be locked up. We all know that the only way to keep us all safe is to lock us all up.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then he has to find a firearm for sale (I'm assuming we're talking about somebody whose record precludes the legal channels). No, this is not as hard as it should be. Which is why that end of the problem should be worked as well. But there's a very good chance that the firearm he buys will be either A) a firearm purchased legally then "stolen" (which is to say not stolen) or B) a firearm stolen from a house like yours, or your neighbor's.

I don't favor "safe storage" laws, so I don't see much that can be done about B) except to encourage those that own multiple firearms to keep only those that are necessary unsecured. The law in the OP is theoretically trying to address A), and I have no problem with that. I see no reason why we cannot try to work both the supply and demand ends at the same time.

Oh, and I haven't seen a slope that slippery in a while. Good one. And by that I mean not good.

The Carpenters likely don't see the reasoning behind them. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ad.php?t=29226
Click to expand...

Yeah, for some reason I was thinking about safe storage from thieves, not from residents. If I have children old enough to handle a firearm, I should be able to leave that firearm accessible (which may or may not mean an easy-access mini-safe, to keep them from those too young to handle one) in cases they need it. Provided, of course, I've taught them to be responsible with them...which I intend to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top