Veil slips on gun control in WA

| February 19, 2013

Washington State legislators are now saying it was a mistake, but ya know, one has to wonder what they were thinking when slipped in wording to their gun control bill that included an annual search of Washingtonians’ homes by local Law Enforcement Officers. From the Seattle Times;

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” [Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer] told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

It’s really not surprising since New York legislation made it illegal for a homeowner to be “found’ to have more than seven rounds in a magazine inside their house. How else would a homeowner be “found” to have more than seven rounds in a magazine if someone is not searching their homes?

But think about it for a minute – how would law enforcement know that a homeowner in legal possession of a grandfathered scary black rifle has said scary black rifle? Well, by registration, of course. And suppose the homeowner doesn’t have their scary black rifle stored the way a LEO approves of, can they confiscate the scary black rifle? In direct contradiction of the 4th Amendment which protects us from the government’s unreasonable search and seizure of property. They’re searching for a legal item, and if they seize it, they’re seizing a perfectly legal item.

So the reporter interviews two of the bill’s sponsors;

“I made a mistake,” [Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle] said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”


“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” [Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle] said.

Yet, there it is. But, we’re unreasonably paranoid.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Sure it was a “Mistake” | TacTalk | February 19, 2013
  1. Old Tanker says:

    See, ya’ll are just a bunch of paranoid gun nuts….nothing to see here, move along folks.

    I can gaurentee they stuck that in there under the hopes that nobody would find it….until it was too late…

  2. Old Trooper says:

    Here in my state, they are using the same language in one of the House Files (it’s not a bill, yet, because it will be included in a larger omnibus bill) that I would have to register my scary black rifle every year, pay a fee, every year, and go through a background check every year, plus, by registering it (a requirement), I give default permission for law enforcement to come into my house any time they want to inspect how my scary black rifle is stored, without a warrant.

    If I was paranoid, I would think that this sounds like a coordinated run on the 2nd Amendment being conducted with the similar language bills being introduced in state houses across the country and that the bills were some how all ready to go and the orders for when to spring them all onto each state came from one place. Of course that would mean it was a conspiracy that would make organized crime blush and it would sound paranoid if someone actually thought that.

  3. Jumpmaster says:

    They had to vote for the bill so that they could find out what’s in it.

  4. Kateser says:

    Guess its too much to ask that they actually READ the freaking legislation that they are SPONSORING. Colorado also just passed all 4 of their gun control measures last night as well.

  5. I still think we’re in the throes of a new cold war. This one inside our own borders.

  6. OWB says:

    That IS the scariest part of this whole mess, Kateser! These clowns are in the habit of never reading this crap before they vote on it thus providing themselves with “plausible deniability.” Makes no sense, but there ya go.

  7. NHSparky says:

    Okay, so who’s paranoid NOW?

  8. MAJMike says:

    Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you!!

    We’ve arrived at a place that would horrify and anger our Founders. Remember, kids, the Battle of Lexington was an attempt by an abusive government to seize military-type weapons from its subjects. (At least that’s the way I taught it in my high school History classes.)

    I’m still looking for our version of a Reichstag Fire.

  9. NHSparky says:

    MAJMike–they don’t even teach the American Revolution in school anymore…it was just a bunch of bitter disgruntled old white racist slave owners, dontcha know.

  10. SGT Kane says:

    I try to avoid the name calling and labeling that goes along with any hot button issue like this one. I also try to avoid ascribing motives to other people (be it modern legislators or long dead ones), because doing so only colors them with my own perceptions. If I were the kind of person who did that, however, I would agree with MAJMike’s conclusion that the founding fathers would be horrified by this crap and that Kline and Murray (Washington State Senators) are morons.

    I won’t touch on the first, because the dead are too difficult to mind read, but as for the second…

    It takes a special kind of individual to believe that the above provision would pass 4th Amendment muster, calling a search an “inspection” doesn’t make it any of a search, and even as messed up as our voting electorate is, we still expect privacy in our homes.

    The irony is, that the New York law, with its “found” language may actually pass constitutional muster, because it does not explicitly allow the police to search based upon the presence of a scary looking rifle. The implication is that if the police are already there, and they happen to notice an improperly secured/configured black rifle, then the violation has occurred. Its the same logic behind the “seat belt violations weren’t primary offenses” meaning the police couldn’t stop you for one, but if they noticed you weren’t wearing your seatbelt after they pulled you over they could cite you for it (I know in most places this has changed and you can be stopped and cited for failure to wear your seatbelt).

    Speaking of seatbelts NHSparky, you in New Hampshire? I just moved to the birthplace of Alan Shepard, and while I wear my seatbelt, I love having the option of not doing so…

  11. DefendUSA says:

    Well, the guy in the article below says we can have safe zones, and rape whistles, not guns!! No. We don’t need them if we “feel” like we’re going to get raped. Holy shit. I commented as a person who was in that situation. I would not have had a chance with a rape whistle, FFS!! But a gun would have stopped it, lickety split. PS…I love me some Ruger, an LC 9.

  12. Old Trooper says:

    @10: You don’t have to read their minds in order to know what they were thinking, because they wrote it all down in the Federalist Papers, in regards to their thoughts on each Amendmennt in the Bill of Rights. That’s the beauty of having those papers as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It was written out for us and described our form of government and what the seperation of powers was for and why. What each of the first 10 Amendments was for and why, etc. The thing the chuckleheads on the left try to do is either ignore actual words in those Amendments, or to parse them to their own meaning. Take for instance the part of the 2nd where it mentions “militia”. The anti-gunners and the left try to use just that word to describe the 2nd, yet they ignore all the other words in it. They find words in other Amendments that aren’t even there and claim that gives them “rights”, while ignoring actual words that are written in order to attempt to take away actual rights.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    This is from a summary of gun laws for Montana:

    ‘In Montana, firearms are not viewed as a tool to kill and create violence, but instead, a means to protect oneself, hunt, and uphold the American constitution.- – source is

    I think I’ll go through that and make notes for each state.

    “If you THINK you’re going to be raped” — does this mean we’re back in the 1950s, prior to getting rid of the attitude that we’re just a bunch of helpless little twits who shouldn’t even try to defend ourselves?

    That noise you hear is my head exploding in frustration.

  14. LCDR M(Ret) says:

    @2 Old Trooper, you don’t happen to live in Maryland, do you? Sounds like something my jackass governor would do.

  15. kp32 says:

    ‘…House Minority Leader Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, said it was “absolutely inconsistent” for Democrats to have added an amendment to the bill in an attempt to keep Erie -based gun-magazine manufacturer Magpul from leaving the state.

    The amendment says manufacturers could still make high-capacity magazines for out-of-state sale.

    “Apparently, they (high-capacity magazines) are not instruments of destruction when they’re purchased outside the borders of Colorado,” Waller said.’

    It’s not hypocritical because every move towards collectivism is correct by definition, just ask Bill Maher.

  16. UpNorth says:

    @#4 & 6. They read the bill, the bill says exactly what they wanted the law to be. Those two morons just scurried for cover when they got caught.

  17. Old Trooper says:

    @14: Nope, I live in the Peoples Republik of Minnesnowta.

  18. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    For those of you who don’t already know, these clowns do not write any legislation. Whether at the state or federal level, there’s an office which the legislator visits or phones and says, “I want a bill that blah, blah, blah.” Some attorney then gets assigned to write the bill. Then there’s the business about voting on a bill. For those few legislators who do any reading before voting, they have a synopis of the bill, giving them the essence of what’s in it. Usually, though, they’re told how to vote by their party leaders and it’s a BIG DEAL when they are actually permitted to vote as they wish, w/o fear of repercussion. It’s an ugly mess and explains the reason for the expression: You don’t want to see either sausages or laws being made.

  19. PintoNag says:

    @13 If you ever get over here to visit, Ex-PH2, you’ve got a friend in the area. Can get you contact info if you want it! 🙂

  20. David says:

    Hve to wonder what would happen if there was a concerted effort by ALL the manufacturers to put pressure on the legislators, a la “pass that bill and we stop all government/LEO sales in your state.” Believe I read where Barrett cut off all sales and warranty service in CA and told the state/local governments to piss up a rope?

  21. Ex-PH2 says:

    @19 – PN, Thank you. I may just do that.

  22. Mike says:

    Throw those commie bums out!

  23. Kateser says:

    UpNorth…Got to love WA politics, either they were too lazy to read the bill they were sponsoring, or they got caught trying to sneak this BS through. Since they want you to believe they just slapped their name to this POS without reading it (which was only a 20 pages). They are either stupid or liars, most likely both.

    If this is the case, then they must also be willing to open the door even wider so the Sheriff can come to your home to look at your computer to make sure there is no porn or gambling websites on it. And, since they’re over there, they should take a look around to make sure you’re not doing any dangerous drugs and your meds are all properly prescribed. Also that you’ve reported ALL your income on your taxes, and that you’ve paid sales tax on those items you bought in Oregon.

  24. Hebert J. Messkit says:

    Tonight my state Senator Mike Carrel said the State Senate is looking more at mental health issues than gun issues. He doesn’t think anything that passes the House will pass the Senate.

  25. fm2176 says:

    Say what you will, but you just don’t hear about this stuff happening in southern states. Not that every politician down there is pro-gun; they just realize that pushing stupid gun laws is political suicide.

    Education might not be the South’s strong suit, but our legislators usually know what’s in the bills they back.

  26. 68W58 says:

    Link via Ace-apparently this was not the first time this particular legislator has included the exact same language in his grabber bills. But otherwise, sure, it was a mistake.