Via Ben Boychuk, I have this article out of Washington State about proposed gun control legislation there.
Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.
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.
February 18th, 2013 | 10:55 pm
Story says the clause was put in the legislation “by mistake.” You know…someone just wrote a piece of legislation and signed it by mistake. I think what the legislators meant was that no one was supposed to find out about this.
February 18th, 2013 | 11:29 pm
Oregon and Washington states have a really, really funny commie-think. This is an example.
February 19th, 2013 | 12:57 am
[...] Via Ben Boychuk, I have this article out of Washington State about proposed gun control legislation there. Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal. But then, Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
February 19th, 2013 | 6:11 am
Legislators don’t (generally) write legislation, staffers do. Some bright young things realized that the only way to control guns is with that kind of control; it is perfectly logical as once legal owners have such weaponry, how do you make sure the things stay under lock and key? Local law enforcement must check periodically. “The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill”
He is quite right, this is where it has to go. Who doesn’t know this?
February 19th, 2013 | 11:59 am
“He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.”
Perhaps it was a poison pill inserted into the bill to make sure it never sees the light of day.
February 19th, 2013 | 3:05 pm
And here it is seeing the light of day. Do you really think “where we need to go” indicates an intentional deal killer?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact