Skip to comments.WA gun bill includes police searches without warrants
Posted on 02/21/2013 6:37:55 PM PST by chessplayer
Oh, lets not call them searches. Lets call them inspections, just a small price for gun owners to pay for exercising a right explicitly protected in the Constitution, and without any probable cause apparent for a crime being committed. After all, we know that will convince criminals not to keep weapons, right?
Even gun-control activists in Washington are embarrassed by this, er, mistake (via Instapundit):
Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isnt hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That its part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
They always say, well never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.
Most of us arent wondering. As for this being a mistake, the description from Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times makes it sound like a pretty deliberate error:
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.
A mistake is a typo or forgetting to insert or remove a key word in legislation; that happens from time to time, with embarrassing but not usually substantial consequences. This was obviously a deliberate part of the bill, intended to intimidate gun owners into giving up the exercise of their rights, again with the meaningless rubric of assault weapons.
Bill died a couple days ago but stay on the look-out.
I guess they thought if they called it an inspection, not a search, they could get around the search warrant thing.
They will try to sneak it in again somewhere down the road.
It was first proposed in 2005. The thing is that the Democrat legislators that introduced the current one said they didn’t read it. It was only eight pages.
Ps. - they need eight pages to say we’re going to check you out once a year? See how you’re locking up your assault rifle? Because that was what it was all about.
What does "safely and securely store the assault weapon" mean?
A weapon that's locked up and unloaded is useless for self-defense.
Key words...administrative search warrant.
1 Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be 2 destroyed; 3 (b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacture 4 or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that 5 agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes; 6 (c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed 7 on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally 8 possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements 9 of subsection (5) of this section; 10 (d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently 11 disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile. 12 (4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person: 13 (a) while lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully 14 operated shooting range; 15 (b) While lawfully participating in a sporting events officially 16 sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part 17 for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events. 18 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was 19 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person 20 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of following: 21 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of 22 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to 23 ensure compliance with this subsection; [Emphasis Added] 24 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or 25 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use 26 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while 27 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of 28 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the 29 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container 30 during transport. 31 (6) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any person 32 in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires 33 title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession, 34 shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following: 35 (a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this 36 section; 37 (b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3) (a) of 38 this section; or p. 7 SB 5737 The under signed declares under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, and the laws of the United States of America 18 U.S.C. § 1621 & § 1746 and The State of Washington FALSE SWEARING (R.C.W. 9A. 72.040), that the above statement(s)/ content (Except Formatting) are true and correct to the best of Affiants knowledge, Executed this 21st, day of February, 2013, at Stanwood, Washington. SS/ Stanwooddave- A.K.A; D.P.G. The same wording as was on bill SB 6396, Pg 7, of SB 6396, Line(s) 19 thru 21. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009‑10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6396.pdf ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Letter(s) to the Editor: Senators have pursued this before I read Danny Westneats Feb. 16th column in The Seattle Times titled Slip-up may slam doors on gun law, [NWSunday, Feb. 17] and became quite concerned. There was no mistake in the bill (SB 5737), which was sponsored by Sens. Ed Murray, Jeanne Kohl- Welles and Kline. The column reads: 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. In the 2010 legislative session, Kline was the primary sponsor of SB 6396. [Link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6396.pdf] This is virtually identical to the current bill he has attached himself to as a co-sponsor. It contains the exact same section calling for sheriff inspections of homes [Page 7, lines 19-21]. It was not inserted into this current bill from a staffer, as claimed in the column. It was there in the beginning. With two sponsors of identical bills in separate years we are lead to believe that they didnt know the provision was in there. Come on, wake up and tell the truth. --Billy Don Card Jr., Wenatchee /////////////////////////////////////////////////// Senator's Kline and Kohl-Welles sponsored SB 5475-2005 and 6396-2010; both bills would have permitted the local sheriff's to perform unannounced inspections of residents homes without a warrant.
You have to ask what they mean by “safely and secure”? ... if you need it like now, how fast can you get to it. Oh, I forgot. Biden says get a shotgun and fire two shots in the air. Should work. I guess. He’s the VP after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.