President Obama, Vice President Biden and a variety of other anti-freedom luminaries constantly argue that no one wants to register guns or confiscate them. No one wants to violate the Constitution, and law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear from those who want only “reasonable” gun laws. “It’s not about the Second Amendment,” they say soothingly, “it’s about safety.”
The Seattle Times, hardly a bastion of right wing opinion, staff writer Danny Westneat writes about a bill pending in the Washington legislature that would ban “assault weapons,” and magazines with greater than 10 round capacity, but it goes a bit further:
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.
That’s right. If passed, the local Sheriff or his deputies will be “inspecting” the homes of the law-abiding now and again. Gee, wouldn’t that be grand? What other sorts of things, things that have no constitutional protection, could the police drop by to “inspect” on a regular basis?
Westneat pronounces himself aghast at the proposal, and fearful of the effect it might have on “reasonable” gun control measures. His op-ed piece even quotes two of the three Democrat co-sponsors of the bill claiming it’s a mistake.
Yeah. Sort of like ObamaCare. Apparently this too was a bill that had to be passed so people could see what’s in it, which would make for interesting discussion when the police stop by for their inspections. Interestingly, neither of the co-sponsors admitted to putting the provision in the bill, or explained why they thought it a good idea when they actually wrote it.
And this is hardly the worst or most unconstitutional provision being considered by those who want only “reasonable” gun laws. The New York Legislature actively considered banning magazines with more than five round capacity, and were also considering outright confiscation of disapproved guns and forced “buy backs” before they settled on their plainly unconstitutional gun and magazine ban.
Even Missouri is getting in on the act. From Fox News:
Democrats in the state House have proposed a bill that would force gun owners to either surrender or destroy weapons including semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and semi-automatic pistols with a fixed magazine that can shoot more than 10 rounds before being reloaded.
Ammunition-feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds also would be banned. Owners also could send their weapons to another state instead of surrendering or destroying them and would have 90 days after the bill’s passage to make a decision.
The Missouri bill has little or no chance of passing–for the moment–but perhaps the NRA and law abiding gun owners aren’t quite so paranoid after all?
“The Missouri bill has little or no chance of passing–for the moment–but perhaps the NRA and law abiding gun owners aren’t quite so paranoid after all?”
The Missouri bill has no chance of passing – period. St. Louis and KC Democrats have run roughshod over the rest of the state for far too long and we’re not going to take it anymore. Most local Democrats around here – southwest Missouri – are more conservative than their urban brethren. By the time the urbanites could get enough support for such a bill it will have been rendered moot by the passage of time.
A couple of friends of mine are retired from the Missouri Highway Patrol and when the report came out listing potential ‘terrorists’ they said if it were true, which they said wasn’t the case, more than half of the patrol would be on the list. Runaway political correctness of the upper echelon – not shared by the majority of the force – was blamed for the report.
My brother lives in Vancouver, Washington and he is pretty liberal but nothing like the majority of Washingtonians. I have no doubt they could probably pass the bill you describe. I just hope the courts would overturn it if it does.