February 20, 2013
A proposed law in Washington State has led to widespread uproar, with citizens decrying the provision that would allow police to search the homes of gun owners without a warrant up to once per year.
The proposed law, SB 5737 , contains a startling provision that would effectively end the Fourth Amendment in the state.
“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 response to the outcry, multiple Democrats who sponsored the legislation are now backtracking with claims that they didn’t actually read the bill and that the specific provision allowing warrant-less searches of all gun owners is being removed.
A report in the Seattle Times  outlined the fact that the original bill has now been removed from the states website, replaced with an updated version that does not contain a provision allowing police to conduct door to door searches of homes.
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, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but 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.
(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the state’s Web site, but here  you can see it as it was proposed.)
Two co sponsors were then quoted in the article as saying that they hadn’t actually read the proposed law and that staff was to blame for the horrific, unconstitutional provision.
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.
This proposed law is a part of a larger tyrannical effort to limit and or restrict the gun rights of private Americans throughout the country.
As pro gun control activists, the corporate media, and elements of the federal government continue to claim that they simply want reasonable gun control, the fact of the matter is numerous extremely unreasonable laws have been passed and or proposed in the wake of the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
In early February Democrats in Californiafloated the idea of outright gun confiscation as they attempted to one up New York in regards to the strictest gun law in the country.
Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.
Lawmakers also want to make some prohibitions apply to current gun owners, not just to people who buy weapons in the future.
That’s right, gun confiscation, a possibility that has been ridiculed by the corporate media and the left for years is now being openly talked about as if they didn’t just spend years and years trying to convince the American people that gun confiscation is simply a right-wing conspiracy theory with no basis in actual fact.
Shortly after the idea was floated in California, a proposed law was introduced  into the Missouri House of Representatives that included outright gun confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons.
A section in the proposed law  calls for direct confiscation:
“Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.
Residents will be ordered to “remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri… Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or… Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.”
The two examples above are merely an example of the numerous gun control measures that have been either proposed or talked about by gun grabbing politicians throughout the country.
Sadly, we are seeing the largest attack on gun rights in the history of America.
Regardless of what the gun grabbers claim, the facts clearly show that most if not all plans for gun control are thinly veiled attempts at much more tyrannical gun restrictions.
(Obviously most can agree that some sort of background check system should be in place but this is far from the only thing the gun grabbers are pushing.)
For a complete report on calls for gun confiscation throughout the country click here.  (up to 16 states have proposed laws that would ban all semi-automatics)