Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat was shocked, shocked to find that Washington Senate Democrats actually are trying to send cops to inspect your home if you own a gun.
The provision of SB 5737 -- sponsored by Democratic Senators Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, and Ed Murray, designed to ban the sale of assault weapons -- states, "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."
Kline says he didn't know that was in the bill. "I made a mistake. ... I frankly should have vetted this more closely."
Well, that's funny to me, because I recall a certain SB 6396 in 2010, which Kline and Kohl-Welles sponsored, which, regarding "safe storage" of assault weapons, read: "The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."
Oh, and then there's SB 5475, also sponsored by Kline and Kohl-Welles, which on the same topic, read: "The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."
Danny, can we please not pretend this was accidental? Three bills, two sponsors, all about banning assault weapons, all giving sheriffs the power to inspect homes ... Klein didn't make a mistake. He simply lied about it when you pointed it out. If I knew the predecessor to this bill said the same basic thing three years ago, is it really reasonable to think Klein and Kohl-Welles, who sponsored both, didn't know?
And while we're not pretending, can we admit the bill is nonsense even without this provision? People would still have and get these guns, and would still be able to buy new guns that are functionally equivalent to the ones that would be banned. There are many pistols and rifles that fire the same bullets at the same velocity and same rate that would not be banned by this bill and would be available for similar prices. It cannot possibly have any effect on gun deaths. It's the opposite of "common sense" legislation.
And actually, it's really only four pages, because the first four pages are unamended portions of an existing section. So a half page a year is all we're asking here.
There's also many pages following the first eight, listing changes to crime tables, and a severability clause at the end, which due to underlining of changes and boilerplate language takes about 1 minute to scan ... or one year if you're a Democratic Senator.
What a crock of BS. The home invasion language was no mistake. The wording is not the output of some zealot staff member. Why? Because self-respecting staffers know that the wording violates several provisions of both the state and federal constitutions.
The chief zealots are senators Kline and Murray. All who voted for the bill know or should know that it is unconstitutional and gregarious overreaching.
Posted by: Paddy on February 18, 2013 10:12 AMWell, their pleasantries should count for something, no?
Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 18, 2013 10:32 AMSo, it's not an apples to oranges comparison that I'm making. I'd appreciate it if you could dispense with these ridiculous obfuscations that you seem so fond of.
Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 18, 2013 11:19 AMThese bills... all of them... are DOA in the Senate.
The idea that these scum believe... for one moment... that the people would allow this usurpation to take place just goes to show how out of touch with reality they are... and that their useful tools are mesmerized into voting for these slime by the "bright, shiny object" politics they play.
Posted by: K.J. Hinton on February 18, 2013 12:23 PMFalse. Exterminators don't have inspections because they store potentially deadly objects, but because they are engaged in commerce using those objects for other people on their property and among people and animals.
As a private person, I am not required to have inspections if I have those same chemicals. Similarly, my kitchen and swimming pool are not subject to government inspections either, whereas kitchens and swimming pools for the general public are.
If this were about inspections for gun dealers, or security firms, etc., you might have a point. But your point was using an example where the government power is explicitly tied to regulation of an enterprise for the general public, not personal use, so you ... don't actually have a point.
I'd appreciate it if you could dispense with these ridiculous obfuscations that you seem so fond of.
False. You threw out a completely nonsensical analogy, and I simply pointed out that fact.
"just saying": I've banned people who agree with me, too (including at least one libertarian, and a few conservatives). I ban anyone who demonstrates a pattern of abuse, including lying and other activities which get in the way of reasonable discussion (such as the incessant use of red herrings, etc.).
Saying I've banned "the resident fringe-leftists infesting us here" only means that I've found them to be abusive.
How thoughtfully petty of you to throw out those salient (in your mind) ad-hominems that would make your fellow low information voter statists cheer and also avoid intelligent discussion. What ridiculous obfuscations do you mean ?
I have yet to read a coherent argument that you have tried to make. It is readily apparent that you don't care about constitutionality.
just saying - how would you govern posts that mock or insult you at every turn if you were to post ? I think it is more a case of those going out of their way to lie and corrupt the original intention of the post and it becomes a pissing match, immersed in pettiness mainly from the leftists and is a deterrent to intelligent responses. Care to answer that ?
Everyone who posts on a blog has the prerogative to ban those who purposely try to corrupt (ie. by knowingly presenting a false narrative, ad hominem attacks on the poster or not sticking to the topic) the intent of the original posts.
Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 01:08 PMhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/18/Washington-tries-to-allow-police-search-homes
Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 04:05 PMYou can take that to the bank as you sit back and watch or tune it out.
Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2013 10:24 PMRight. It puts the power to inspect everything in your home to a law enforcement officer, without a warrant.
You're probably correct that few inspections would happen. It doesn't matter. The fact that they can do it, that they can hang this over your head, that they can pretend to have justification for intruding into your home whenever they feel like it (provided they have't already done so within a year) ... it's an affront to the very nature of liberty.
And again, they read the bill. They lied. They introduced the exact same wording in 2010 and 2005.
There are no separate "original bill" and "corrected bill files", just the "corrected" original bill.
The bill says it was first read on 2/13/2013, so the clause was amended after the reading.
Also, SB6396 was introduced twice in 2010; once in the regular session and once again in the 1st special session.
Someone read the 2005, 2010, and 2013 bills because, though they contain a lot of similar language, there have been changes. The 2013 bill added a threaded barrel (suppressors now outlawed) and there were changes in Table 2 about which RCW's this bill would amend.
I do find it odd that someone would put their name on a bill and not know what was know what was in it when it was introduced in the legislature. As you said, this was a short bill, are our representatives even worse about knowing what is in longer bills?
If this was an honest oversight, it still is no excuse. Our representatives should always read the final version of a bill before introduction of before their vote, how else will they find out about things that "slipped in" or weren't removed?
If they don't have the time (or desire) to read the bills before introduction or a vote, perhaps they are in the wrong job.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 19, 2013 06:27 AMPropose something ludicrous, that is: ban the purchase of weapons that could actually do a good job of fighting an oppressive government when they finally declare they have taken away the last of our inalienable rights...
Then add onto it something even more ludicrous, that is: having cops walk through your homes when they want to...
Then apologize for the oversight of the even more ludicrous thing and tell the media and everyone that they will take that out so now everything in the bill is hunky dorry and there is no longer any reason to oppose it.
Posted by: doug on February 19, 2013 06:50 AMThis bill would create an impairment to our Constitutional right.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 19, 2013 06:59 AM
SouthernRoots: Someone read the 2005, 2010, and 2013 bills because, though they contain a lot of similar language, there have been changes.
Exactly. And again, it's only four pages. The legislators knew what was in it. They reviewed what it said each time it was introduced. Of course they did.
doug: I don't think so. I think they just thought -- correctly -- that the only way to enforce the law was to have inspections, so therefore, they put inspections in the bill.
Whenever a Representative introduces, sponsors or votes yes on a Bill, they certify (under penalty of law) that they have read and understood the Bill.
Posted by: Dishman on February 19, 2013 09:45 AMWhenever a Representative introduces, sponsors or votes yes on a Bill, they certify (under penalty of law) that they have read and understood the Bill.
Posted by Dishman at February 19, 2013 09:45 AM
Do you have anyone who would sponsor such a bill ?
It would be nice and most people would like to see this occur, but you know that the political will is unlikely to be there. You forgot, they are the ruling class - not only in DC but in Olympia and the other liberally governed states.
We are at least two cases where the fraud information is still listed in 'sound politics' data base and both of us have made repeated attempts to ask it be removed from our PII"s since in both cases it was fraudulently done/created.
Since there is evidence of these being fraud why is the website author refusing to answer emails to have the information redacted from the website? He was already informed that the State departments involved have taken this action. Refusal of this type is libelous and actionable in court. I have been advised to file an FTC complaint and I will most likely take that action unless the fraud related information is removed from my PII's (name,dob,address).
After having this experience with this website I am not sure I can see anything posted here as relevant based upon factual truth. Why would anyone put any stock into what is said here if the information cannot be trusted to have accuracy and integrity? And how can anyone here state the website has these qualities if the editor refuses to remove fraud related data when he is made aware of it's presence? He is lucky I don't sue for defamation of sorts...or subpena him with an injunction to shut down the site until the information is redacted. This comment has no party line connection fraud is fraud....
Posted by: Jenny Shepard on February 19, 2013 01:53 PMI would advise, however, that someone publishing information given to them as part of the government record is not culpable for fraudulent portions of that data. That's nonsense. Thee's no FTC complaint or lawsuit to be made here. You're just blowing smoke.
Now, take it elsewhere.
State initiative process is probably the only way.
I'd like to add one more requirement: A copy of the Bill, with the Representative's initials on every page, submitted to the state archives prior to any submission, sponsorship or 'Yes' vote.
The additional term would create a suitable paper-trail for audit, and force Representatives to chose between at least going through the motions, and engaging in deliberate, traceable perjury.
These requirements would not be much different from what many of us already deal with professionally.
If you like the idea, pass it on.
Posted by: Dishman on February 20, 2013 04:08 AMVice President Joe Biden as the head of the gun control task force just said the undeniable truth, ""Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down...".
Coming from you, pudge, this is rich. You believe that all sorts of things are "unreasonable", including the thought processes of nearly anyone who disagrees with you. And it's your right to believe that and come across as an obnoxious, arrogant, narrow-minded, inconsiderate jerk on a power-trip.
But to claim that just because something is unreasonable in your mind means it didn't happen is just wrong. You, sir, are lying.
Posted by: lia on February 20, 2013 11:34 AMFalse. I did not say they were the same thing. YOU claimed, incorrectly, that @3 I was ambiguous about whether or not they read it, but @23 I was straightforward. No, I have been straightforward about it the entire time, as evidenced by the original post. But in @3, I was making the point that not only have they read it, but that in addition it is unreasonable to believe otherwise: that somehow they've sponsored the same four-page bill, with slight changes, at least three times over eight years, and that they don't actually know what it says.
You believe that all sorts of things are "unreasonable"
So do you. So does everyone.
... including the thought processes of nearly anyone who disagrees with you.
You're lying. Please stop. I never think someone is unreasonable based on whether they agree with me on any issue. Ever. I think they are unreasonable only based on how they arrive at, or present, or argue, their views ... whether they agree with me or not.
And it's your right to believe that and come across as an obnoxious, arrogant, narrow-minded, inconsiderate jerk on a power-trip.
I only "come across" that way to someone who is ignorant. Shrug.
Not if the topic is dishonesty.
Since when is it off topic to discuss YOUR organization's dishonesty as well as the dishonesty you think you perceive in others?
Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 20, 2013 03:43 PMPosted by Angelus Novus at February 20, 2013 03:43 PM
Folks, here is a bonafide conspiracy theorist and and a classic prevaricator. Suppose I ask if you can provide any documented proof of your accusation ?
Back at ya', Novus - looks like the crack in your windshield is ever expanding, dude
Posted by: KDS on February 20, 2013 04:02 PMYou are one of the few commenters on this blog who would be better served if Pudge erased your comments.
Posted by: Angelus Novus on February 20, 2013 04:07 PMIf he was banned, it was for the good of the discussion - Bravo !
Posted by: KDS on February 20, 2013 06:16 PMStop before you hurt yourself with your contortions to pretend you're not lying. Your only support for claiing "they read it" is that you personally think it's unreasonable to believe otherwise. It's reasonable for you to say you think they read it or should have read it, but only a liar would say it's a fact that they read it.
Posted by: lia on February 21, 2013 01:25 AMNo. My actual support for it is that they introduced the same four-page bill, with minor changes, three times, and there is no reason to think that they didn't read it any of those three times.
It's so incredible to me that the left thinks that the Democrats knew what was in nearly 1,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act, but somehow these two legislators didn't read the four pages they sponsored three times?
If you have a rebuttal to the evidence, fine. But don't pretend the evidence isn't strong.
... only a liar would say it's a fact that they read it.
I didn't say it is a "fact." You're the one who's lying here. I suggest you stop now.
Stop before you hurt yourself with your contortions to pretend you're not lying. Your only support for claiing "they read it" is that you personally think it's unreasonable to believe otherwise. It's reasonable for you to say you think they read it or should have read it, but only a liar would say it's a fact that they read it.
Wait - so your position is that the Democrat legislators who introduced this bill not once, not twice, but 3 times - NEVER READ THE BILL?
That's your position you're arguing in favor of? And you think that's good?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 21, 2013 09:24 AMWhen you confront a lefty with reason, they don't do so well. The point of Dem legislation is never to solve anything, as for example Joe Biden admits with regards to all of the current gun ban talk and the reality that no legislation will ever actually prevent another massacre. Everyone knows this. It is common sense.
But that does not stop a lefty like lia from defending the waste of legislative time and good intentions over substance that is modus operandi of all Democrats.
What would actually work, is to get more people to carry whatever form of protection they were able to use safely. If criminals and potential ne'er-do-wells knew that the little old lady next to them was probably at minimum packing pepper spray or a taser, or that many teachers in schools had CWLs, they would think twice before mugging her or starting a classroom massacre.
As it is, most people are just sitting ducks on the government dole. Which is really what fools like lia want.
Posted by: Leftover on February 21, 2013 11:52 AMI will not register any firearms. And if Alan Gottlieb and Co. supports "Universal Background Checks" which only create a database of gun owners for future confiscation, then he and his bunch of fairies can take a flying you know what.
Molon Labe.
Posted by: Joe Band Member on February 23, 2013 02:43 PM