2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,153
- 52,407
- 2,290
This is a look at the Unconstitutional tax an the exercise of the Right to bear arms......but inside of the article they point out a lesser known provision that the anti gunners actually put into legislation......the legislation didn't pass.....but the key point is had it made it into law...the power to search your home for guns would have been given to police.......
and of course once this was discovered......the anti gunners who put it into the bill acted like it was simply an accident........
so keep telling us that no...they don't mean what they say........
We know what they want...and we know if they ever get the power the 2nd Amendment will be gone...
Merry Christmas: Judge Rules In Favor Of Seattle’s Gun Tax
At the same time, this isn’t the first questionable bill regarding Second Amendment rights emanating from Washington State. In February of 2013, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray was then serving in the state senate and introduced a bill that would ban assault rifles. But it included a very controversial provision that would’ve allowed law enforcement to search one’s home once a year "to ensure compliance." Even Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat found this troubling. The bill was subsequently killed, and Murray was elected mayor of Seattle in November of that year (via Seattle Times 2/13):
Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
[…]
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.”
Even the bill’s co-sponsors, including then-Sen. Murray, admitted that this provision was "a mistake," and that it was "probably unconstitutional":
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”
That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.
The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.
“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.
and of course once this was discovered......the anti gunners who put it into the bill acted like it was simply an accident........
so keep telling us that no...they don't mean what they say........
We know what they want...and we know if they ever get the power the 2nd Amendment will be gone...
Merry Christmas: Judge Rules In Favor Of Seattle’s Gun Tax
At the same time, this isn’t the first questionable bill regarding Second Amendment rights emanating from Washington State. In February of 2013, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray was then serving in the state senate and introduced a bill that would ban assault rifles. But it included a very controversial provision that would’ve allowed law enforcement to search one’s home once a year "to ensure compliance." Even Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat found this troubling. The bill was subsequently killed, and Murray was elected mayor of Seattle in November of that year (via Seattle Times 2/13):
Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
[…]
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.”
Even the bill’s co-sponsors, including then-Sen. Murray, admitted that this provision was "a mistake," and that it was "probably unconstitutional":
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”
That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.
The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.
“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.
