Oh how I wish that were true, but I've tried to many cases and talked to too many jurors to believe what we were told in law school.b322da wrote:Juries are called on to answer questions like this every single day, legislators use such language endlessly, and judges are adept at explaining to juries what is meant by expressions like "reasonably should have known." Raising such a smokescreen simply avoids the real question and arguably adds nothing of any great significance to the debate. We must keep our eyes on the ball.ScooterSissy wrote:Unfortunately, the bill doesn't address "the moment they realize it stolen". The bill states an offense occurs if the owner "...fails to report the loss or theft to a peace officer or law enforcement agency on or before the 48th hour after the time the person knew or reasonably should have known the firearm was lost or stolen."sbrawley wrote:Wouldn't a rational law-abiding citizen report a stolen firearm the moment they realize it stolen?Seems to me that the only ones who wouldn't, would be the criminals themselves, therefore, making this bill utterly pointless.
Who do you want to decide, for you, at what point you should have "reasonably" known a gun was lost?
I found a gun laying in the street, with a broken holster, in my neighborhood once. I'm about 99% sure some poor guy put it on top of his car meaning to put it in his car, only to have it fall off as a drove away. I don't know if he (or she) might have been driving to the grocery store, or might have been going to on a 500 mile trip down south. Who would get to decide at what point it is "reasonable" for him to have realized he's lost his gun?
'
Jim
Chas.