you know it’s gone too far when today’s Lympian begins to get it

sorta

“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.”

…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

MisterGrumpy

24 Comments!

  1. geezerette
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:28 am |

    So the Sheriff can only come into your house and “conduct a inspection” ( is that what they call it now?) well than that’s better I could go along with that. I mean heck ones a year that’s not that bad. Right?

  2. JoeBandMember™
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:32 am |

    That’s after you register your home defense weapon.

    This will be overturned by the people is they dare pass it and Inslee signs it.

    We are headed for a revolution, nationwide.

  3. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 9:35 am |

    I received a very well crafted crafty letter from my Senator Tim (Kommie) Kaine re: gun legislation. For three paragraphs he reiterated while he was mayor of Richmond, later governor of Virginia, he was tough on crime, got legislation passed for stiffer penalties on armed robberies, rapes, etc., is a gun owner, believes in the 2nd Amendment etc.
    Fact is, his predecessor and losing opponent in the senatorial election, George Allen, did the tough on gun crime laws, and Kommie ended the letter with this at the very end:

    “As a gun owner who worked with others to constitutionally guarantee Virginians the right to hunt, I know that you can be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment without tolerating the gun tragedies that are too often a part of our daily lives. (Up yours, you Kommie, I don’t hunt, I want to defend myself against thugs and wannabe tyrants like you. And you didn’t mention the thousands of times a year armed citizens save themselves and others from violent crime. I sent him a list of links of security camera films of home invasions; when the victims were armed, they prevailed, when the victims were defenseless, they lost property and lives.)

    Concerning specific proposals, I am a strong supporter of universal background record checks. (= national data base) This is the only way we can enforce existing laws that prohibit dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. I am open to supporting legislation placing reasonable limits on high capacity magazines (I asked the senator specifically about the Georgia mom who emptied her five shot pistol into an invader armed with a crowbar; he stopped attacking and left under his own power – what if there were more thugs with him? Her gun was empty.), combat-style weapons and gun trafficking if they are carefully drafted.”
    Is he a true Progweasel or what?

  4. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 9:54 am |

    Yessireebob, sounds pretty unfrikkin’constitutional t’me. *spit*

    Oh, and that “safely and securely store” is ambiguous enough to drive a SWAT tank through.

    *heh* Our newly reality-smacked Lib friend, here, just put himself on the list of “true believers” who’ll be dealt with in the third phase of the revolution.

    This. was. not. a. mistake on the part of the drafters, you jackasses!
    It was an essential part of the draft.
    First, it might’a gotten passed, Seattle bein’ what it its.
    Second, it’s an easy throw-away in trade for keepin’ the rest.

    [goes back to cleaning gun]

  5. Steve Skubinna
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 10:03 am |

    Funny thing about police states. Even if you establish them to narrowly target specific groups, everyone ends up having to live in them.

    So some guy can grow weed legally, but an armed representative of The State may enter my home to inspect my legal property? Sure, nothing unreasonable there. All part of the common sense restrictions we’ve been hearing about during the National Harangue Conversation. We give up enough freedoms and they’ll quit bothering us, right?

    Is that the way it works?

  6. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 10:06 am |

    The legislation is “only” 8 pages long….

  7. Lurch
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 11:03 am |

    I hope the NRA makes this story a national commercial now and the next 3 elections. It proves the point that there is no such thing as “common sense” gun laws anymore – just steps to disarming the public. It truly becomes a choice in what is worse, freedom and violent thugs with guns or oppression and a coercive state monoply on violence. I rather defend my home against the thugs.

  8. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 11:08 am |

    And whose definition of an *assault weapon* will be used?

  9. geezerette
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:28 pm |

    Who’s to say what they find will be defined as a reason to have to do their inspections more often?

  10. PeggyU
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

    It would be great if you all would share your opinions here: Washington Votes. org.

  11. Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:54 pm |

    I’ve got an assault rifle law that is less than one page long:

    All Washington CCW holders are also Washington State Members, and may purchase a burst-fire M-4 assault rifle at cost from the nearest Washington National Guard armory, and carry it anywhere they please in any manner they please.

    I think this substitute legislation will fix most of the problems with violent behavior in Washigton state.

  12. JoeBandMember™
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm |

    AND…

    Last night Bill O’Reilly promoted gun registration on Letterman.

    Another moron without a clue.

  13. JoeBandMember™
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

    Last week…

    Silly me…

  14. USMC2481
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm |

    They’re only going to violate the 4th amendment once a year. Maybe they’ll enslave us (13th amendment) once a year. Hey, Let’s not let women vote (19th amendment) once a year. Then to top it all of let’s do away with the 16th all together.

  15. tctsunami
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 5:14 pm |

    Like all laws of this kind it will have mission creep.

    the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon.

    Please define that. Will a simple metal box with lock suffice? I doubt it. They will continue to add to the enforcement code to make sure a $600.00 gun safe will not have the required gauge and locking bolts. It may take a $3000.00 dollar safe to make them secure. Then some other fool will decide they have to be lag bolted into a cement floor no less than 6 inches thick and 6X6 ft. They’ll keep adding to the law to make it impossible to safely store a weapon unless your really really rich, or a politician.
    They could even add additional searches if your last visit didn’t meet other undesirables such as dirty dishes in the sink or no milk in the fridge.

    Liberals all suck the wind out of obunglers ass.

  16. satted
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 5:20 pm |

    As Thomas Paine said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

  17. tctsunami
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm |

    Was typing too fast. I meant to say “if their last visit found such other undesirables”.

  18. JoeBandMember™
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm |

    One of the supporters of this Bill is a Republican legislator from Seattle, an appointed Police official, Mike Pope.

    He claims that criminals get their guns in private sales, while line offficers and deputies I have personally spoken with tell me the crooks steal the guns they are caught with.

    All this stuff, nationwide, will lead to the murder of citizens who refuse to give up their rights, martial law, and the next revolution.

    Molon Labe.

  19. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 6:24 pm |

    ^ tctsunami: Good points about the gun safes. A few years ago up here in Canuckistan, a fellow had his gun safe in the basement of his house – and thieves broke through the walls and lifted out the whole thing.

    And the guy was charged with unsafe storage.

    (Don’t know how it all panned out – never heard anything more so I kinda figure the case, um, sorta disappeared from the docket, so to speak. But still …..)

  20. accipiter NW
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:18 pm |

    I just searched SB 5737 and now there is a corrected copy of it. So, it looks like they took that part out, but it was also in a similar 2005 bill that failed. Couldn’t slip it in back then, don’t have enough low info constituents (hopefully) behind it now.

  21. Chuck from Tacoma
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

    Of course my actuary wife, the numbers person in the house’s first thought and question was “who is going to pay for such a labor intensive program?

  22. ZZMike
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:25 pm |

    Y’all gotta remember that when firearms are “safely and securely stored” – namely, in a Wells Fargo 1898 bank vault safe, and when the ammunition is also “SSS”, namely, in a titanium lockbox in the basement (or attic, depending on your location), they might as well be made of cardboard, as far as deterring any marauding bad guys who think this’ll be a nice house to break into.

    On the other hand, the law talks about “assault weapons” (which, as we all know, is clearly and precisely defined in the statute), so your Glocks and Walther PPKs and Barak SP-21s and such, can be safely left lying around on the coffee table.

  23. Paul
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 9:53 pm |

    Expect this definition of ‘assault weapon’ to expand. And expect the criteria for ‘safe storage’ to change in time to require more and more expense to satisfy their idea of safety.

    Kind of funny there are more drownings in swimming pools than all deaths by ‘assault weapons’ but they never inspect them yearly nor try to make the ‘safe’.

  24. ZZMike
    Posted February 19, 2013 at 1:58 pm |

    Update: Loons reined in:

    Guns ‘N’ Roses

    “Having been called on the unconstitutional search provision, the three Seattle Dems who introduced the bill were quick to reply, “Um, well.” Upon questioning, two of the sponsors allowed as how it might have been a mistake to have that whole part in there.”

    Direct to the Seattle Times:

    Mistake in gun bill could defeat the effort

    “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.”