Yesterday, I posted about a proposed Los Angeles law that would require gun owners to report stolen firearms under threat of punishment.
If I thought their true agenda was public safety, I'd be surprised that the most obvious unintedned consequence of this measure has been missed: It will not affect the class of people who commit "gun violence," since most criminals do not legally "own" their guns. They would actually be immune to complying for another obvious reason: If they reported a stolen gun they were not legally eligible to possess, they would be in a position where local law requires them to incriminate themselves, that is, the City is presuming authority to override Constitutional Fifth Amendment protection.
On the plus side, I suppose anyone defying California's evil militia weapon ban could also claim similar immunity were their unregistered firearms stolen...
If I thought their true agenda was public safety, I'd be surprised that the most obvious unintedned consequence of this measure has been missed: It will not affect the class of people who commit "gun violence," since most criminals do not legally "own" their guns. They would actually be immune to complying for another obvious reason: If they reported a stolen gun they were not legally eligible to possess, they would be in a position where local law requires them to incriminate themselves, that is, the City is presuming authority to override Constitutional Fifth Amendment protection.
On the plus side, I suppose anyone defying California's evil militia weapon ban could also claim similar immunity were their unregistered firearms stolen...