Damned lysdexia!
If we’re still talking about Pennsylvania here, I’m not so sure. I did a quick search and came up with this:
It’s rather vague on where exactly the magazine is in relation to the firearm, however. It doesn’t say that the magazine has to be attached to the firearm, in which case it’s still a bit fuzzy.
Here in Washington, at least, a firearm is specifically not considered loaded unless there is a round in the chamber or cylinder, or a round in a magazine that is inserted into the action. So if I didn’t have a CPL, I could still have my pistol on the passenger seat with a full magazine right next to it and it would be considered unloaded.
In Pennsylvania it doesn’t matter whether it’s unloaded or not. If there is the possibility that it could be loaded you need a permit. Otherwise, ammunition goes in the trunk and the gun stays up front, or vice versa.
The relevant part is underlined. Note “separate container”. That cannot be an ammo box sitting next to you. That’s the trunk or some physical divider that you cannot access while driving.
I suppose it depends on what you do for a living. For me, it is a crime to fail to report the loss (via theft or if I can’t find it for any reason) of any amount of radioactive material or any biological material on the “select agents” list (i.e. potential biowarfare stuff). There have certainly been biologists charged for these violations, although I don’t think anyone has done jail time.
Technically, it is a crime for me to fail to report the loss of any work-supplied equipment (i.e. my laptop, PDA, thumb drive, etc…) that I take off of work premises, as it is considered theft of government property. In reality, unless they think you’re selling it, they aren’t likely to prosecute.
It is also a violation of HIPPA regulations to fail to report the loss of any thing which contains unencrypted identifiable patient data, even if it is your personal equipment (i.e. you’ve brought home some data to work on on your home computer, or your cell phone has a list of patient names/contact info). I don’t think this is prosecutable (although it may be, I’m not sure), but it definitely can result in very hefty fines.
In short, it’s actually not that uncommon to have mandatory reporting of loss/theft of dangerous materials.
It should be noted that PA is a “shall-issue” state and (leaving aside whether permits should be required or not) getting a permit is easy and cheap everywhere except Philadelphia. So, if you want to carry a loaded gun in your car, there really isn’t any reason not to take the minor precaution of getting the permit.
It’s easy in Philadelphia, too. Philly has no gun laws or exceptions unique to them, contrary to conventional wisdom. Pennsylvania has preemption. It might be more expensive, but they can’t capriciously deny licensing.
What they can do is have the police chief’s office that handles licensing open every third Tuesday that occurs during a full moon for twenty minutes past sunrise.
Not that they would…
No longer true! http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20080411_Nutter_defiantly_signs_five_gun_laws.html The mayor has signed five laws in defiance of state preemption.
So? The mayor does not get to decide, and those laws will not stand. It’s symbolic at best.
Hah! I love that headline! “Nutter defiantly signs five gun laws.” How true that is. 
Anyway, those city ordinances are already invalid - that’s what “preemption” means. The mayor is violating state law; he hasn’t got a ghost of a chance.
Oh, well, that’s odd. So there are two overlapping statutes in Pennsylvania regarding this issue? That seems like it could be confusing…
And it’s a felony? Yikes! Here in Washington carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle without a license is a misdemeanor.
As best as I can tell your recollection is faulty. At any rate, what I found in the U.S. Code is Chapter 105 of Title 15, which prohibits "qualified civil liability actions from being brought in state or federal court, but goes on to specifically define such “qualified civil liability actions” to exclude cases of manufacturers who are criminal or negligent, and specifically does not include suits for manufacturing defects as among the lawsuits prohibited from being brought.
In other words (as best I can tell; IANAL), if BangCo is actually furnishing guns to bad guys in some criminal or negligent way, they would still be on the hook for civil actions in addition to criminal penalties. If BangCo sold you a gun and it blew up in your face, you could still sue. (Although there’s a provision that would seem to make it so that if Vito the Moose bought a BangCo gun to knock off Sammy the Squealer, and said gun blew up in Vito’s face while he was attempting to criminally assassinate his victim, Vito would be out of luck when it comes to suing the manufactuer for shoddy workmanship.)
What is prohibited is suing BangCo because they make a gun which gets sold to someone, without any demonstrated criminal culpability or negligence on BangCo’s part, the which said BangCo product eventually winds up being used to shoot you or your loved one.
We did a thread about this a while back, if you’d like to take a look.
I agree. I was amused by your statement about preemption while I had just read about “Nutters” actions on another web site virtually minutes earlier. 
I agree that they won’t stand, but will some poor schmuck have to be the guinea pig and get charged in order to get them tossed?
No, it’s as if they don’t exist, and since they were passed in defiance of the state constitution and the existing preemption law Nutter (what an apropos name) and the city council are all subject to being charged with breaking the law were the state so inclined.
Fortunately for Nutter he’s got the Governor of Philadelphia in his back pocket. :rolleyes:
Well, in the context of individuals and institutions which have obtained permits to handle regulated materials (radioactivity, certain toxins, controlled drugs, etc), failure to report loss or theft of said materials is subject to various forms of punishment: fines, temporary or permanent revocation of permit (which is worse for a lab than any fine - funding is replaceable, time is not…), and so forth.
Certainly the Radiation Office here lives in mortal fear of the wrath of the NRC, and has frothing-at-the-mouth hysterics if the biannual audits come up short; an investigation to rival the Spanish Inquisition is instantly mounted to ferret out the fate of the missing stuff.
On the other hand, I think the penalties involved are mostly civil rather than criminal, so this may or may not count as a “crime” depending on how you define the word.
Dunno about cases involving your more typical consumer goods.
JRB
Um, I totally failed to notice your post before posting mine. To recap, what mischievous said.
JRB
Courtesy of Philadelphia Inquirer:
Yowza! I feels safer already! :rolleyes:
So, Mr. Gangbanger merely needs to increase his pool of straw purchasers to beat the one per month limit, however I would sooner suggest that his purchases, or better, appropriations of firearms aren’t conducted at retail or wholesale establishments.
If we could only get the perpetrators of crime to report the weapons they “lost” after capping someone, or call to advise of the weapons they’ve stolen in the last 24 hours, this might be successful.
Folks served with PFAs come in two basic types: those who have no intent of causing trouble, but are getting their balls broken, and those who don’t give a tin shit what Mayor Nutter signs.
The last two are just meh. The law already allows the removal of weapons from your home or person if you’re deemed a threat to yourself or others from an MHMR standpoint. The flap about teh evil assault weapons has been bullshit and continues to be bullshit. The Clinton ban did doodly-squat, and the Nutter ban will do an equal measure.
Sorry, Mr. Nutter, but if you want to clean up the streets of Philly, emulate Francis Lazarro Rizzo, Sr., and stop with this posturing crap.
:dubious:
Am I missing something or is that totally redundant?
ETA: or does it allow the court to do that when it didn’t have the ability to do so before?
“Hey, I lost my handgun in Walmart the other day. I’m reporting it.”
:rolleyes:
Does the anti-gun community really think that lawful gun owners are so stupid that we regularly lose guns? Do they think that if we where robbed of a gun we wouldn’t report it?
If you get robbed, and you are a law abiding gun owner, you will have to report the stolen items to police to recover costs through insurance.
The only thing this is going to do is put more ink on paper, and more bits on drives. It’s like having the crochet club trying to regulate meterologists. Or visa-versa.
By the way, I would be fascinated to know how many theft of firearm reports were received last year by the Philadelphia police department and what exactly was done to investigate those reports.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess (1) they received a decent number of reports; and (2) they did little or nothing in the way of investigation.