Second Amendment Blog
Pittsburgh Adopts Lost & Stolen
Posted by:Sebastian on 
Nov 25th, 2008 | 
Filed under: Gun Rights
City Council voted for the measure yesterday. This really gets my goat:
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said Councilwoman Tonya Payne. “This is what’s right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that’s fine … We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable.”
So we get to disregard limits on government just because one City Councilwoman things it’s “what’s right to do?” There was a time when people thought that holding slaves was the right thing to do. We properly did away with that with the 13th Amendment. Then some people thought that making African-Americans second class citizens was “the right thing to do.” The Fourteenth Amendment, and the several Civil Rights Acts that were passed under its authority, put that sorry bit of history behind us.
Our state and federal constitutions are an individual’s only defense against the predations of politicians who think they know what’s right for other people. One thing you shouldn’t do in society that properly limits government power is to create crimes that reverse the burden of proof from the state to the accused, because the authorities just know that a certain person must be guilty.
Straw purchasing is already a serious crime. Either the state has the evidence it needs to meet its burden of proof, or it does not. What you don’t get to do is to pass another law that allows prosecution to proceed on a technicality, based on an assumption of guilt for the more serious crime. Someone who is not guilt of straw buying will end up with a hefty fine, and or will spend time in jail because of this ordinance. This is not how our system of justice is supposed to function.
Related posts (automatically generated):
November 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
24 hours? So what happens if you house is broken into when you’re away for a long weekend?
Hell I haven’t opened one of my safes in like two weeks!
This will solve a LOT of crime I’m sure!
November 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Ms. Tonya Payne needs to be impeached, unless supporting and defending the Constitution isn’t in her job description.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?”
I think this beats “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” as the scariest words in the English language. It’s a sad testament that her constituents aren’t caning her in the street.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Recall vote.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
[...] Pittsburgh passes a law to punish only the law-abiding. [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
[...] Councilwoman Tonya Payne says no one should care if a law is unconstitutional as long as “it’s the right thing to [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Unreal.
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?”
Seriously?
November 25th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The purpose of “lost or stolen” laws are to make it easier to punish people for making private sales once private sales are made unlawful.
Fight this tooth and nail.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Well,
Impeach Tonya Payne: It’s the right thing to do.
I’m ATL- and I approve of this message!
November 25th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Let the city council know…
http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/district6/
http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/district6/html/district_6_feedback.html
November 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
[...] at Snowflakes in Hell has more. Related Posts » Well, crap.» Civility and Standing Up For Yourself» Never Fall [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
[...] really cares about it being unconstitutional?’ Sebastian, at Snowflakes in Hell, has found the Quote of the Day–if not the Quote of the Month. “Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” said [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
[...] Pittsburgh decides to punish the victims [...]
“Pittsburghians, you’ve got 24 hours to report a stolen / lost firearm or your the criminal now. Constitutional law be damned.”
Nice safe, btw.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I doubt she even gets the irony of her statement.
She openly flaunts the law, while at the same time, expecting the people she ostensibly leads to obey the laws she helps pass.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Just who the @#$% does she think she is?
I’m sorry, but she is the “domestic enemy” that a lot of people swore an oath to protect the Constituion against.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Well, don’t go retiring your commission just yet… Start by letting them know that she’s trash…
November 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
call the state AG and demand that she be brought up on treason charges
November 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
That would be possible if Treason was a state offense, but it’s a federal offense. But even given that, this is not treason.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
One side doesn’t care about the law. The other side does. Guess which side wins?
Gramsci’s side.
Who hath ears, let him use a Q-Tip.
III
November 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
There are lots of “right” things to do to people like her…ALL of them against the law.
What’s a law abiding person to do? I guess the best I can do is hope for a harsh winter and some icy stairs for this creature.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Here is Pittsburg city council oath of office:
“I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State and the Charter of this City and I will faithfully discharge the duties of office to the best of my ability.”
November 25th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Its a shame that one thing that the Founding Fathers missed was a punishment for promoting, submitting or voting for unconstitutional acts by elected officials.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
“Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?”
That’s quite likely what “birth certificate” Obama said to himself about his own ineligibility to serve as POTUS back when he first decided to announce his candidacy.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:47 am
and the will of the people just elected someone of the same cut of cloth for president by electoral college- not popular
November 26th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
[...] Uncle has a post about it here, referencing Sebastian’s post here. [...]
November 26th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
So true!
November 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The really tragic part of this insanity is the ordinance Councilwoman Payne wants targets the law abiding, and not criminals. To make matters worse, it has been tried before with negative results. That is, violent crime increased after passage of similar bills. Just as it has after passage of each of the other 22,309 restrictive gun laws that are already on the books. So Payne not only wants to put an unconstitutional ordinance in effect, she wants an ordinance that will result in MORE violent crime instead of less.
Of course, from her viewpoint, “It does not matter how many time’s it has failed, it will work this time.” That is what Joe Tydings said about the Gun Control Act of 1968. And that fatal legislation has already cost the lives of over a half million innocent Americans.
Pete Allen
November 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
[...] my friends, look at this quote “who really cares about it being unconstitutional?” made by a Pittsburgh city councilwoman about a measure they passed recently. That story ties in [...]
November 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am
[...] insulting when someone who has no knowledge or experience with the issue at hand tells me that my rights or freedoms have to be compromised for my own safety. Fortunately, the TSA is mostly just annoying. But gun control actually costs real lives. Humans [...]
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
[...] Remember Tonya Paine? Well, now we suburbanite gun owners need to be reigned in because we can’t stop ourselves from coming into their fair city to trade our guns for smack: “We have a lot of suburbanites that come into this city carrying their arms and they trade them off for these stamp bags of heroin,” said Payne. “Let’s call a spade a spade. People don’t want to hear the truth.” [...]
December 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
[...] Pittsburgh: Where the Constitution is optional. [...]