No. We are NOT crazy (potential gun bill)


PDA






SigSour
February 18, 2013, 06:54 PM
I really hope this gets out there, showing that NO we're not crazy and NO we are not paranoid about where these anti-gun bills will lead.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

If you enjoyed reading about "No. We are NOT crazy (potential gun bill)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Millwright
February 18, 2013, 06:59 PM
Never have been ! In my salad days, (also the hey day of the John Birch Society) I was called thus. I wonder if those declaimers (at least the ones not looking at grass roots or drooling in their pablum) are having "second thoughts" ? (PI) >MW

H.m.B
February 18, 2013, 07:18 PM
So how would the 4th Amendment allow this ...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just because I own something legally, I have to consent? I don't think so ...

I really don't think this will fly but it is a crazy mixed up world we live in!

Shadow 7D
February 18, 2013, 07:20 PM
YES YOU ARE
remember these are the same people that have no problem with using the Army (posse comitus...) to kick doors and confiscate (steal) guns

Cause living in Orwellian 1984 is SAFE and you ARE NOT THEM
you are an NRA(=KKK) Terrorist, who supports ARMING crazy people and criminals...

And this is a GOOD THING (to live in a totalitarian state with no liberty...)

and you are sick in the head and very stupid and racist and...(hate lies and character attacks) if you don't LIBERAL GROUPTHINK the same

SigSour
February 18, 2013, 07:24 PM
So how would the 4th Amendment allow this ...


How would the 2nd Amendment allow what they're trying to do now?? Once they knock one Amendment down you can bet your sweet (fill in the blank) they will start going after the other ones.

I'm so hot right now I don't know what to do. This guy puts something like that into a bill then when it's found he says "oh" - they really DO think the American people are idiots and that sets me on fire!

Shadow 7D
February 18, 2013, 07:24 PM
The author is VERY anti gun
It's not that he disagrees, but rather than NEXT YEARS BILL
got put forward and will now pose an issue for (and raise defenses against) the lesser infringements planned for this year. Read the last 3 lines.

bogon48
February 18, 2013, 07:25 PM
Scary. I'm with H.m.B. This sounds like a law that could be struck down.

Not sure about WA, but down here in VA most police have all they can do to keep up with the bad guys. They wouldn't want this legislation. They're spread too thinly to enforce some nitwit's new idea of safety.

jamesbeat
February 18, 2013, 07:36 PM
So how would the 4th Amendment allow this ...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just because I own something legally, I have to consent? I don't think so ...

I really don't think this will fly but it is a crazy mixed up world we live in!
The problem with that is: define 'unreasonable'.
Knocking on doors to confiscate suddenly-illegal weapons would be considered by the antis to be a reasonable thing to do.

After all, they would have proof that you were a felon because your guns would have to be registered by law.

All they need is that list, and we're done for...

SigSour
February 18, 2013, 07:38 PM
I just contacted the NRA and forwarded them this article. I'm hoping they can shine a spotlight on this.

H.m.B
February 18, 2013, 07:39 PM
How would the 2nd Amendment allow what they're trying to do now?

Somehow our Bill of Rights has become a list of pick and choose depending on how the populace feels about the personal impact on them. It's easy to pick on "those gun people" when a lot of people can't identify with the gun culture. On the other hand, having a law allowing unwarranted access to your domicile for possessing a legal item impacts a greater audience. As the article stated, they may have gone too far ... this time.

Queen_of_Thunder
February 18, 2013, 08:05 PM
Well so far with this latest boondogle ghe anti's have attacked the following Amendments to the Bill of Rights: The First, The Second, The Fourth and the Fifth.

Its time for Articles of Impeachment.

dbp
February 18, 2013, 08:10 PM
Another thread on same topic on THR. Maybe a mod can merge them.

Agsalaska
February 18, 2013, 08:17 PM
That's a great find. I have a stake in a business in Washington so I pay some attention to their politics. I love seeing liberals have stunning realizations about their positions. I guarantee you that will forever change the view of both the author of the article and the politicians he quotes. I'm not saying they will back off. They have a different view of what responsible gun ownership means than we do. But they now recognize the extremes in their own party. It's beautiful

NHCraigT
February 18, 2013, 08:18 PM
I love the response of the bill's sponsors;

In Other Words: "golly-gee, how'd that get there? That's in there?....whatta - ya - know....didn't realize that was in there, where'd that darn thing come from? ....honestly, I never noticed it...."

TOTAL BS.....like the Cheater caught = with lipstick on his collar.....

InkEd
February 18, 2013, 08:24 PM
I want to know what person wrote that out-right invasive bill! The people of Washington should be kick him/her out of office immediately!

Agsalaska
February 18, 2013, 08:37 PM
I love the response of the bill's sponsors;

In Other Words: "golly-gee, how'd that get there? That's in there?....whatta - ya - know....didn't realize that was in there, where'd that darn thing come from? ....honestly, I never noticed it...."

TOTAL BS.....like the Cheater caught = with lipstick on his collar.....
Yea maybe but maybe not. I know a lot of liberals who support stricter gun laws that would never support something like that. I suspect that could be the case for a lot of elected officials too.

jamesbeat
February 18, 2013, 08:46 PM
I wonder why the anti gun author of that article was shocked about that aspect of proposed gun control, but not about the idea of gun control itself?

I guess everyone has their limits, and making an anti go 'Hang on, that's a bit much...' is no small victory.

You guys probably won't be surprised to learn that in the UK, the police can visit your home whenever they feel like it if you're a firearms certificate holder...

That is how the antis feel about us. They don't hate guns, they hate what their stereotype of a gun owner is.
In their opinion, we are no different from criminals, and deserve to be treated as such.
This 'slip of the pen' has exposed them for what they truly are, and exposed their true intentions too.

It is absolutely no different from hating someone for being black or gay or a woman, and it is terrifically ironic that they feel that they justify their bigotry as some kind of moral crusade.

Agsalaska
February 18, 2013, 09:02 PM
I wonder why the anti gun author of that article was shocked about that aspect of proposed gun control, but not about the idea of gun control itself?

I guess everyone has their limits, and making an anti go 'Hang on, that's a bit much...' is no small victory.

You guys probably won't be surprised to learn that in the UK, the police can visit your home whenever they feel like it if you're a firearms certificate holder...

That is how the antis feel about us. They don't hate guns, they hate what their stereotype of a gun owner is.
In their opinion, we are no different from criminals, and deserve to be treated as such.
This 'slip of the pen' has exposed them for what they truly are, and exposed their true intentions too.

It is absolutely no different from hating someone for being black or gay or a woman, and it is terrifically ironic that they feel that they justify their bigotry as some kind of moral crusade.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. That is stereotyping the left just like you claim they stereotype us. I think most just feel more secure in life with stricter gun laws. They don't see us as criminals. As you said, everyone has their limits. And their limits are more restrictive than ours. I think you are describing the fringe extremes, not the common liberal. I know plenty of liberals that will shoot a deer and shoot you dead if you break in their house. but they see no need for 'assault weapons' in society. But they certainly wouldn't support home inspections either.

mastiffhound
February 18, 2013, 09:15 PM
If you think that this makes the reasonable among us mad what do you think the hyper-easily inflamed will do. One thing that scares me is at some point some unhinged person will say screw this and start shooting. The other thing is that these tool bags are going to keep trying underhanded tactics to pass their civilian disarmament objective. Voting while the people sleep, slipping in laws with seemingly innocous bills, or just making up laws through executive order.

The longer these "thief in the night" law makers stay in office the closer we get to the possibility of it all going terribly wrong for everyone. It makes me wonder if they are purposely pushing so when someone does react in a violent manner they can say "We told you so, now we are taking all of the guns!". The whole thing makes my stomach turn.

Either you didn't read the law you signed on to pass, or you did read it and lied about it. I don't know which one makes me more angry? You shouldn't be able to vote if you can't be bothered with reading laws you sign on with or if you are going to lie when your caught. To think, a guy lying about sexual favors is impeachable but a guy being either incompetent or lying about a bill he signed on to pass isn't. Can you guess which lie I see as more important?

jamesbeat
February 18, 2013, 09:31 PM
I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. That is stereotyping the left just like you claim they stereotype us. I think most just feel more secure in life with stricter gun laws. They don't see us as criminals. As you said, everyone has their limits. And their limits are more restrictive than ours. I think you are describing the fringe extremes, not the common liberal. I know plenty of liberals that will shoot a deer and shoot you dead if you break in their house. but they see no need for 'assault weapons' in society. But they certainly wouldn't support home inspections either.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean liberals in general, I meant the hardcore anti gun people, the people that devote their lives to the cause. The extremists. That's who I am referring to when I say 'antis'. I'm not stereotyping them, I'm looking at the evidence.

Liberals tend to buy into their ideas, but they are often skillfully worded and whitewashed with lies, as we know only too well.

Agsalaska
February 18, 2013, 09:39 PM
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean liberals in general, I meant the hardcore anti gun people, the people that devote their lives to the cause. The extremists. That's who I am referring to when I say 'antis'. I'm not stereotyping them, I'm looking at the evidence.

Liberals tend to buy into their ideas, but they are often skillfully worded and whitewashed with lies, as we know only too well.
Fair enough. I can agree with that.

Texan Scott
February 18, 2013, 10:45 PM
One might point out that UNCONSTITUTIONAL and WRONG as it would be, it would not be possible without REGISTRATION of those rifles.

Another reason to love my home state and fear/ distrust the federal government du jour.

jamesbeat
February 18, 2013, 11:21 PM
They don't care about the Constitution...

climbnjump
February 19, 2013, 12:49 AM
This same provision for "inspection" also exists in the weapon ban bill HF-241 in the Minnesota House - a portion of which is excerpted below. See this link if you'd like to read the entire bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0241.0.html&session=ls88


Subd. 5. Registration of assault weapons. (a) A person who legally owned or
9.15possessed an assault weapon before February 1, 2013, and who desires to keep ownership
9.16or possession of the weapon shall comply with the following requirements:
9.17(1) submit to a background check conducted by the chief of police of the
9.18municipality in which the person resides, or if there is no police department the sheriff
9.19of the county in which the person resides, to confirm the person is not prohibited from
9.20possessing a firearm under state or federal law; and
9.21(2) unless the person is currently prohibited by law from possessing a firearm,
9.22immediately register the weapon with the appropriate law enforcement agency.
9.23(b) A person described in paragraph (a) shall comply with all of the following:
9.24(1) safely and securely store the assault weapon pursuant to the regulations adopted
9.25by the appropriate law enforcement agency;
9.26(2) agree to allow the agency to inspect the storage of the weapon to ensure
9.27compliance with this subdivision;
9.28(3) annually renew the registration, subject to the completion of a new background
9.29check;
9.30(4) possess the weapon only on property owned or immediately controlled by the
9.31person, or while engaged in the legal use of the weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or
9.32while transporting the weapon in compliance with United States Code, title 18, section
9.33926A; and
9.34(5) report the loss or theft of the weapon to the appropriate law enforcement agency
9.35within 48 hours of the time the discovery of the loss or theft was made or should have
9.36been made.
10.1(c) Registered assault weapons may not be purchased or transferred, except for
10.2transfer to the appropriate law enforcement agency for the purpose of surrendering the
10.3weapon for destruction.
10.4(d) The registered owner or possessor of an assault weapon may not purchase
10.5additional assault weapons.
10.6(e) The appropriate law enforcement agency may charge a fee for each registration
10.7and registration renewal pursuant to this subdivision.
10.8(f) Persons acquiring an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession shall,
10.9within 120 days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
10.10(1) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction; or
10.11(2) modify the weapon to render it permanently inoperable.
10.12(g) Each chief of police and sheriff shall do the following regarding assault weapons
10.13registered under this subdivision:
10.14(1) adopt regulations specifying how a person who registers a weapon shall safely
10.15and securely store it when it is not being used;
10.16(2) implement a policy of inspecting the storage of weapons; and
10.17(3) conduct background checks and implement a registration system.
10.18EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective September 1, 2013, and applies
10.19to crimes committed on or after that date.

10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE
10.21OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
10.22Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault
10.23weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to
10.24prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
10.25(1) remove the weapon from the state;
10.26(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
10.27(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or
10.28(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section
10.29624.7133, subdivision 5.
10.30EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

palmrose2
February 19, 2013, 10:51 AM
I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. That is stereotyping the left just like you claim they stereotype us. I think most just feel more secure in life with stricter gun laws. They don't see us as criminals. As you said, everyone has their limits. And their limits are more restrictive than ours. I think you are describing the fringe extremes, not the common liberal. I know plenty of liberals that will shoot a deer and shoot you dead if you break in their house. but they see no need for 'assault weapons' in society. But they certainly wouldn't support home inspections either.

Nope. You can't really have one without the other. The plenty of so called liberals you know only think about their own freedom. They don't want their doors knocked down by people discovering whatever taboo they may practice, but have no such concerns regarding certain weapons. The liberals you know are stateists and are fine with the state as long as the state is being "reasonable". Reasonable to them is whatever there societal norms happen to be.

Any idiot that want's to make policy based on whether or not somebody "needs" something is not a "liberal". They are Statists. Feel free to inform them of my opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "No. We are NOT crazy (potential gun bill)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!