WA gun bill includes police searches without warrants

posted at 8:41 am on February 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Oh, let’s not call them searchesLet’s call them inspections, just a small price for gun owners to pay for exercising a right explicitly protected in the Constitution, and without any probable cause apparent for a crime being committed.  After all, we know that will convince criminals not to keep weapons, right?  Right?

Even gun-control activists in Washington are embarrassed by this, er, mistake (via Instapundit):

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. 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.”

Most of us aren’t wondering.  As for this being a “mistake,” the description from Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times makes it sound like a pretty deliberate error:

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.

A mistake is a typo or forgetting to insert or remove a key word in legislation; that happens from time to time, with embarrassing but not usually substantial consequences.  This was obviously a deliberate part of the bill, intended to intimidate gun owners into giving up the exercise of their rights, again with the meaningless rubric of “assault weapons.”

By the way, yet another study shows that an “assault weapons” ban will have no impact on crime.  Did it come from the NRA?  No, it came from the Department of Justice, which has held it close to the vest for the last six weeks:

Justice Department researchers have concluded that an assault weapons ban is “unlikely to have an effect on gun violence,” but President Obama has not accepted their report as his administration’s official position.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the DOJ’s National Institute for Justice explains in a January 4 report obtained by the National Rifle Association. “If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” That idea is also undermined by the acknowledgement that “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

The research in that report didn’t stop Obama denouncing “weapons of war” during his State of the Union speech on February 12.

The number of homicide victims from all rifle types is about 3% of all homicide victims on an annual basis.  They are far outstripped by victims from cutting weapons or even “personal weapons” — hands and feet.   Anyone who paid attention to the impact (and lack thereof) of the 1994 ban already knows this.  However, this current hysteria makes for a wonderful opportunity to frighten law-abiding citizens with threats of random police searches while doing nothing about the criminals, who will benefit from the redirection of law-enforcement resources.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Don’t jump to conclusions…you have to pass it to see what’s in it…

right2bright on February 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Does Wa have enough jails and money in the budget for this?

docflash on February 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Perhaps a good use for all those concentration camps FEMA / DHS have supposedly been building?

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2013 at 12:25 PM

This was not any mistake — Senator Murray included similar language in another bill back in 2009.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=6396

Also, word has it that Murray is very capable of planning a multi-year step-by-step effort in the past to achieve his goals. This guy is all abut the slippery slope.

The_Real_JeffS on February 19, 2013 at 9:39 AM

You are correct.

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.

SENATE BILL 6396
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2010 Regular Session
By Senators Kline, Fairley, Kohl-Welles, and McDermott
Read first time 01/13/10. Referred to Committee on Judiciary
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6396.pdf

5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was
legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person
possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
(a) 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;

Colbyjack on February 19, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Excuse me for mis-interpreting that…..

Well, Thomas Paine was rude, so too was Patrick Henry, John Adams…many people who decided to
“… to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.”

JFKY on February 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Actually, they weren’t. They were gentlemen and conducted themselves as such.
Taking up arms and fighting for freedom is not solely the purview of ‘knuckle-draggers’ and boors.

Solaratov on February 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Sure, waive your fourth amendment rights by exercising your second amendment rights. I didn’t know that the Bill of Rights was supposed to be “pick and choose.”

morganfrost on February 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM

So, the two States that have legalized marijuana are now passing the most strict gun laws. I wonder if there is a correlation between the two?

DDay on February 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM

WA gun bill includes police searches without warrants

When last we checked in on the state that gave us Patty Murray…

ToddPA on February 19, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Hey, remember when liberals coined the phrase “jack-booted thugs” ?
kurtzz3 on February 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Actually, that was Wayne laPierre (of the NRA) referring to the ATF and other militarized law enforcement groups.

(not that there was anything wrong – or inaccurate – about that)

:)

Solaratov on February 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM

The first person to be arrested for saying no will win in the courts. Maybe.

Gatekeeper on February 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Murder, assault, burglary, armed robbery, have all been illegal for a very long time. Some of these fools writing more legislation might want to drop by the jail or the courthouse one day. It’s amazing how many people are there who didn’t get the memo.

Get this through your thick skulls, left-wing flower children:

Laws are obeyed by law-abiding citizens.

You do not impress the rest.

IndieDogg on February 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Actually, they weren’t. They were gentlemen and conducted themselves as such.
Taking up arms and fighting for freedom is not solely the purview of ‘knuckle-draggers’ and boors.

Solaratov on February 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM

But I’m fairly certain that His Majesty George III and His Majesty’s Emissaries, Agents, and Officers found the whole rebellion thing, just deucedly uncouth and rude….

And that would be MY point….rudeness, in terms of not accepting some conventional wisdom-such as ‘slaves-in-waiting”-, is hardly rude. Or rather that in demonstrating we are NOT slaves in waiting, the Masters and their compradors will find us rather rude and boorish.

JFKY on February 19, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Actually, that was Wayne laPierre (of the NRA) referring to the ATF and other militarized law enforcement groups.

ACTUALLY I believe it was Carl Levin…US Senate and Democrat.

JFKY on February 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Hollowpoints anyone?

Bmore on February 19, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The number of homicide victims from all rifle types is about 3% of all homicide victims on an annual basis.

Per Diane Feinstein, who I really doubt would be low-balling the number
“Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.”

This is ~40 homicides per year, IIRC the FBI stats for homicides involving all rifles was ~400 per year.

agmartin on February 19, 2013 at 1:07 PM

F it, let it burn.

Let them pass this “law”, let the house to house searches happen. Give people exactly what they voted for.

Then watch as the lawsuits start to rain down and the courts slap this fascist Dimocrat BS down forever. We already have the Constitution and Bill of Rights backing us up, after this we’ll have more court precedents as well.

Meople on February 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Liberals are psychopaths. They want to destroy the foundations of America and replace it with a totalitarian police state. This includes not only their Messiah but also the 51% voters who supported him and cheer him on.

sauldalinsky on February 19, 2013 at 1:20 PM

In cities we don’t have enough money in the budget to afford enough police officers to adequately patrol, and we don’t have enough money to give them raises or to allow them to be promoted.

But we can afford to have officers go door to door to inspect how citizens store their guns?

Why not go door to door to see how gangbangers store theirs?

Chitownmom on February 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Oh, let’s not call them searches. Let’s call them inspections, just a small price for gun owners to pay for exercising a right explicitly protected in the Constitution, and without any probable cause apparent for a crime being committed.

That’s not the only bad part of the law. What people don’t realize is that once the police officers are in your home, anything that is incriminating and in the “plain view” of the police officer simply adds to your legal troubles.

This is a bad law with a lot of intended consequences that the lawmakers didn’t want you to know about or think about.

Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM

a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

Don’t worry guys, an unnamed staffer made this mistake without oversight, he/she will be punished appropriately, and you’ll never have to worry about it.

Who were they? Well I don’t want to give names in a situation like this…

If I gave names I might make a mistake and use the same hypothetical made-up name next time we screw up this badly… you know, tomorrow.

gekkobear on February 19, 2013 at 1:54 PM

What are the WA cops saying about all of this? Last time I checked, a domestic visit is the most worrisome and lethal for cops.

I don’t think they are big fans of “knock knock – can I see your gun to make sure it is stored and of the legal kind”

Odie1941 on February 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

What are the WA cops saying about all of this? Last time I checked, a domestic visit is the most worrisome and lethal for cops.

I don’t think they are big fans of “knock knock – can I see your gun to make sure it is stored and of the legal kind”

Odie1941 on February 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I’m sure the cops are all for it. It will allow them and whoever else is involved in “gun safety joint task forces” or whatever to inspect everyone, their possessions and their houses for compliance. See something that gives you “reasonable suspicion” during the safety check? Search away. All without a warrant. It’s a cops dream.

Not too many people out there killing cops, it’s very rare for a cop to be killed by someone in the line of duty. I don’t think it worries them. I’m pretty sure they’re more worried about getting hit by a car on the side of the highway when they’re pulling someone over for seat belt / cell phone / soon to be cigarette (in CT) compliance, which is statistically much more likely to happen.

Timin203 on February 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM

The attempt to say that you weren’t aware that a bill you sponsored allows home invasions isn’t washing, and is getting a lot of attention by voters in WA.

What it is showing us is the progressive liberal wishlist. The current crop of legislators believed that they could get their Christmas wishlist early, and no one would notice them criminalizing the majority of the state. They attempted to capitalize on the hysteria and slip a monstrosity through, unnoticed, and got caught.

Rode Werk on February 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I’m sure the cops are all for it. It will allow them and whoever else is involved in “gun safety joint task forces” or whatever to inspect everyone, their possessions and their houses for compliance. See something that gives you “reasonable suspicion” during the safety check? Search away. All without a warrant. It’s a cops dream.

Timin203 on February 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Only liberal leaning or power-tripping fascist type cops.
Those who actually understand their oath of office to uphold the US (and state) Constitution don’t want anything to do with this kind of pre-cursor to confiscation.
See the home page for my El Paso County (Colorado) Sheriff to see a cop on the right side of this issue:
http://shr.elpasoco.com/

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2013 at 2:11 PM

a good move.

We need more law-abiding citizens armed to teeth. Makes the criminals think twice.

ButterflyDragon on February 19, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Yep. Virginia lots of guns around, hard to tell who’s packing and who’s not. Difficult to pick out a victim….unless there’s an Obama/Biden sign in the yard or the car :-) Low crime rates in Virginia too. Yet in D.C. with some of the most restrictive gun regulations in the country it’s not safe to walk around after dark. Of course that’s because of all those guns in Virginia. Did you hear about Prince George’s county Md. They’re going to ban gun shows. For anyone familiar with the area the irony there is monumental.

Oldnuke on February 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Oldnuke on February 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Dang it! Wrong thread again.

Oldnuke on February 19, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Only liberal leaning or power-tripping fascist type cops.
dentarthurdent on February 19, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Sorry about the redundancy…..

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM

All politicians who don’t read bills, spontaneously combust.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Can I be honest here? Murray is a flaming rainbow boy. He was all set to move into the big chair as Senate leader when the two donkeys decided that we would get flooded with all things fabulous so they switched sides to give the GOP the Senate majority. The GOP rewarded their switch by giving one of them the leadership – it’s hysterical that the Senate GOP is led by a donkey.

Murray is the guy that pushed SSM last year instead of balancing the state budget even though he was head of the budget committee. He created the lie that the state economy is expected to grow 7% over the next ten years, which allowed the state to borrow enough money to “balance” the budget.

Murray’s sex life is something he parades around in public. But it isn’t his worst quality. Petulance and grudges are.

platypus on February 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Correction: s/b grow 7% per year starting next year.

platypus on February 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM

It occurs to me that Obama doesn’t care if any of these bills pass or not. It’s probably better for him if they don’t. It’s the hysteria that gratifies him and serves his purposes. He’s stoking the fires of the adolescent savagery within his base and of division within the country. That’s what matters — the rising bonfire. That’s the long game — or the compressed Cloward-Piven long game.

The more lunatic bills that get proposed (with the imprimatur of legislative authority for the MSM to peddle), the more protests, the more the MSM feeds the narrative of an irrational and violence-loving gun rights movement that refuses to be “reasonable”, the more the liberal base responds by caricaturing “gun nuts” and the more the emotional imperative of gun control seeps into the wider culture. No one was talking about gun control a year ago. The very subject was considered anathema to democrats. Now it’s become an obsession. This makes no sense in terms of facts, statistics, social or political reality, national priority — anything. So why are we losing our minds over it? Obama is why. It’s all about emotion and division within the context of an MSM-controlled culture that can steer both toward the broader ideological reformulation of society.

We’re in the midst right now of an emotional-authoritarian viral coup of our country. It can’t be easily identified or fought. It has perfectly insinuated itself into — just as it subverts — our American processes and institutions. It has exploited the basic human susceptibility to emotional manipulation and especially the civic ignorance of our young people through the decay and even outright eradication of American civics education in our schools.

rrpjr on February 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Can I be honest here? Murray is a flaming rainbow boy.

platypus on February 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Yup.

Isn’t it entertaining how the gay-sex marriage supporters scream that gay-sex marriage is “constitutional”, but that the Second and Fourth Amendments aren’t?

northdallasthirty on February 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Does part of this bill change the uniform of the State Police to a black blouse over a black shirt, with black jodhpurs and riding boots, and of course a black leather long-coat?
Just asking.

Another Drew on February 19, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Does part of this bill change the uniform of the State Police to a black blouse over a black shirt, with black jodhpurs and riding boots, and of course a black leather long-coat?
Just asking.

Another Drew on February 19, 2013 at 3:36 PM

We need to pass it to find out.

rrpjr on February 19, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I’m sure the cops are all for it. It will allow them and whoever else is involved in “gun safety joint task forces” or whatever to inspect everyone, their possessions and their houses for compliance. See something that gives you “reasonable suspicion” during the safety check? Search away. All without a warrant. It’s a cops dream.

Timin203 on February 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Another problem is that while they are looking around, the police will start talking to you casually or asking casual questions. However, once police start questioning you, anything you say while they are looking around can be used against you. Its not an interrogation since they’re only doing an “inspection” and talking to you. Miranda applies if you are not free to leave. But if the police are talking to you in your own home, where do you leave to?

If this law was enacted, it would be ideal to have a lawyer with you while they cops look around or simply don’t say anything at all. Just shut your mouth and ask for a lawyer.

Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Saw a video class presentation from a law school put out a number of years ago. The first half (30 minutes) was the law prof saying don’t talk to the cops period other than giving “name,rank and serial number.” the second half (30 minutes) was by a police sergeant who said don’t talk to the cops period other than giving “name, rank and serial number.” That is good advice. If cops come into the home to search don’t respond to any question by them. As for me and my house if that were to occur the cops can talk to themselves and I will warn them that I am recording everything said.

chemman on February 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM

I’m sure the cops are all for it. It will allow them and whoever else is involved in “gun safety joint task forces” or whatever to inspect everyone, their possessions and their houses for compliance. See something that gives you “reasonable suspicion” during the safety check? Search away. All without a warrant. It’s a cops dream.

Also, the very first reaction police departments will have to this is, “We don’t have the resources to properly conduct these safety checks! We need more money!” And naturally the left will be all too happy to give them that money through increased taxes and federal LEO grants financed with borrowed Chinese dollars.

More money, more paramilitary SWAT teams outfitted with the very best fully automatic weapons, crowd control measures and fancy tactical gear and vehicles that money can buy. All being deployed against law-abiding gun owners while Obama’s thugs run unchecked through the community.

Gator Country on February 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM

This is ~40 homicides per year, IIRC the FBI stats for homicides involving all rifles was ~400 per year.

agmartin on February 19, 2013 at 1:07 PM

323 in 2011.

“Assault weapons” accounted for just 0.012% of ALL of the deaths in the US in 2011.

Resist We Much on February 19, 2013 at 5:17 PM

The mistake was the people found out about it before it was passed.

JellyToast on February 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM

It occurs to me that Obama doesn’t care if any of these bills pass or not. It’s probably better for him if they don’t. It’s the hysteria that gratifies him and serves his purposes. He’s stoking the fires of the adolescent savagery within his base and of division within the country. That’s what matters — the rising bonfire. That’s the long game — or the compressed Cloward-Piven long game.

The more lunatic bills that get proposed (with the imprimatur of legislative authority for the MSM to peddle), the more protests, the more the MSM feeds the narrative of an irrational and violence-loving gun rights movement that refuses to be “reasonable”, the more the liberal base responds by caricaturing “gun nuts” and the more the emotional imperative of gun control seeps into the wider culture. No one was talking about gun control a year ago. The very subject was considered anathema to democrats. Now it’s become an obsession. This makes no sense in terms of facts, statistics, social or political reality, national priority — anything. So why are we losing our minds over it? Obama is why. It’s all about emotion and division within the context of an MSM-controlled culture that can steer both toward the broader ideological reformulation of society.

We’re in the midst right now of an emotional-authoritarian viral coup of our country. It can’t be easily identified or fought. It has perfectly insinuated itself into — just as it subverts — our American processes and institutions. It has exploited the basic human susceptibility to emotional manipulation and especially the civic ignorance of our young people through the decay and even outright eradication of American civics education in our schools.

rrpjr on February 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Exactly. This is so right on the mark. No crisis can go to waste, including the ones generated by Obama himself.

When you read about an “insurgency” starting up in the USA, fomenting rebellion, crazy gun nuts resisting the Law and causing acts of “terrorism”; it will be your friends and neighbors who have had enough.

Bulletchaser on February 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Really, why should there be any need to ‘inspect’ a home by police without a warrant? Do you have something to hide, comrade? You wish to be ALLOWED to own a LEGAL product? Ah, then you must SUBMIT to the power of government through its police.

Courts? Who needs courts when you have legislators willing to abrogate your rights?

Soon, I’m sure, WA will just abolish courts and just let the police decide everything. Really, legislators and police are fit enough to run anything, right comrade?

ajacksonian on February 19, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Even in California you still need a warrant to enter someone’s home.

California has the nation’s only program to confiscate guns from people who bought them legally but later became disqualified. During twice-weekly sweeps over the last five years, agents have collected more than 10,000 guns.

The job requires a mixture of force and finesse. The agents show up in heavily armed teams, wearing black jumpsuits bulked up by bulletproof vests. But they don’t have warrants and, unless their subject is on probation, they need permission to enter homes to search for guns. Obtaining a search warrant typically requires a reasonable suspicion that the gun would be on the premises, a difficult standard to meet based solely on information from a database, officials said.

Instead, they must talk their way in and coax gun owners into turning over their weapons.

LA Times

And if the CA state senate passes something not requiring warrants, the 9th Circuit will strike it down on appeal.

RINOs are people too on February 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM

The dreams of a leftist. Screw you effers!

CW on February 19, 2013 at 6:11 PM

The mistake was that it was caught before it was passed. They will and slip it past another time.

clement on February 19, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Ein weld, ein ordnung.

S. D. on February 19, 2013 at 6:30 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Explain that to the innocent victims of SWAT team no-knock raids in the middle of the night – at the wrong address.

dentarthurdent on February 19, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Missouri Bill Makes It A Felony For Lawmakers To Propose Gun Safety Legislation — Yesterday, Missouri state Rep. Mike Leara (R) proposed legislation making it a felony for lawmakers to so much as propose many bills regulating guns. Leara’s bill provides that “[a]ny member of the general assembly …

RELATED:
Andrew Kaczynski / BuzzFeed:
Missouri Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Make It A Felony To Propose Gun Control Legislation

Evan McMorris-Santoro / Talking Points Memo:
Missouri Republican Wants To Make It A Felony For His Fellow Lawmakers To Propose Gun Laws
Discussion: Springfield News-Leader and The Raw Story

Shouldn’t it be illegal to restrict a Constitutional right?

Colbyjack on February 19, 2013 at 7:01 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

So that whole thing about unlawful searches should be pitched?

The simplistic thoughts some of you people have makes me fear for our future.

CW on February 19, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Then watch as the lawsuits start to rain down and the courts slap this fascist Dimocrat BS down forever. We already have the Constitution and Bill of Rights backing us up, after this we’ll have more court precedents as well.

Meople on February 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Sure, we have those two documents, but will we have courts that will back them up. Remember, CJ John Roberts didn’t last summer.

Jvette on February 19, 2013 at 7:48 PM

F it, let it burn.

Let them pass this “law”, let the house to house searches happen. Give people exactly what they voted for.

Then watch as the lawsuits start to rain down and the courts slap this fascist Dimocrat BS down forever. We already have the Constitution and Bill of Rights backing us up, after this we’ll have more court precedents as well.

Meople on February 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I have neither the confidence nor the hope that this will happen. The left will not let that happen; somehow it’ll find itself in front of a judge who is on the take, who they have something on, or who is simply gung-ho in favor of this – and they will make sure that the people suing are made examples of and get jail time, just to make sure everybody else toes the line.

Midas on February 19, 2013 at 8:03 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

You’re a f*cking moron, aren’t you?

/rhetorical question mode off

Midas on February 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Then you’ll no problem whatsoever inviting them inside to search your house without a warrant or even the pretense of “probable cause.”

Go on – lead by example.

Gator Country on February 19, 2013 at 8:13 PM

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

You so richly deserve the worst things in the world to happen to you and everything you love.

tom daschle concerned on February 19, 2013 at 8:16 PM

F it, let it burn.

Let them pass this “law”, let the house to house searches happen. Give people exactly what they voted for.

Then watch as the lawsuits start to rain down and the courts slap this fascist Dimocrat BS down forever. We already have the Constitution and Bill of Rights backing us up, after this we’ll have more court precedents as well.

Meople on February 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM

1) What indication is there that the courts will be relevant by that time?

2) What are the odds, given that Chief Justice Roberts has already defined a way for the government to void the Bill of Rights, that the courts will not defer to the wisdom of the Executive Branch?

3) And even if they do rule against the searches, what are the odds that the Executive Branch will pay any attention at all to the ruling?

The Rule of Law is dependent on the government obeying the law itself. And if the government refuses to obey the law, what obligation do either citizens or subjects have to obey the law?

Subotai Bahadur

Subotai Bahadur on February 19, 2013 at 8:23 PM

We really need to give nonpartisan a break here. It was so looking forward to the day when it could put down the XBox controller, waddle outside and capture the SWAT team breaking down the front door of the gun nut neighbor on its Obamaphone, and post the video on YouTube so it could fistbump with the rest of the liberal trash on Twitter and Facebook.

And now we’ve taken its promise of entertainment away, for the time being at least. Damn us all anyway!

Gator Country on February 19, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Before Dunblane in the UK, certain people could still own guns subject to permits and other restrictions, but the police could come in and inspect how those permit-holders stored those firearms at any time.

I recall because I lived there while the police came into our building one day to search the flat next door. Basically, everyone else around the gun owner was also pissed because the cops used it as an excuse to stop by other flats if they ‘suspected’ anything amiss.

A few short years later, all private ownership of firearms was banned in the UK.

Firefly_76 on February 19, 2013 at 8:39 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Just change your nom to “simp.” I guess if in old Deutschland circa 1935 you weren’t a Jew or thinking of becoming one you would be fine also.

arnold ziffel on February 19, 2013 at 8:41 PM

1998: The year Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the “toughest gun-control legislation in the country.”

1.5 million: Number of active gun licences in Massachusetts in 1998.

200,000: Number of active gun licences in Massachusetts in 2002.

65: Number of homicides in Massachusetts in 1998.

122: Number of homicides in Massachusetts in 2011.

1.9 per 100,000: The Massachusetts murder rate in 1997.

2.8 per 100,000: The Massachusetts murder rate in 2011 and represented a rise relative to the rest of the nation, which was decreasing.

6.8 per 100,000: The United States murder rate in 1997 (when the AWB was in place).

4.7 per 100,000: The United States murder rate in 2011 (7 years after the expiration of the AWB).

20.7%: Percentage of increase in robberies with firearms between 1998 and 2011.

26.7%: Percentage of increase in aggravated assault with firearms between 1998 and 2011.

70%: Percentage of Massachusetts’ murder rate that equaled the rate for Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York in 1998.

125%: Percentage of Massachusetts’ murder rate that equaled the rate for Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York in 2012.

1998: The year Massachusetts State Senator Richard Moore accurately predicted: “Much of what has been said in support of this bill will not come to pass. The amount of crime we have now will at least continue.”

Resist We Much on February 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Oh, lookie! We have a Prog, who unabashedly supported Bush’s warrantless wiretap programme.

After all, “if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid” of the government listening to your phone calls or, for that matter, reading your email, searching your home, searching your computer, obtaining all of your financial and medical information, etc.

I think that you may be the first Prog, who I’ve seen so enthusiastically come out in support of Bush’s Patriot Act, which Obama extended.

I bet that you don’t mind the provision in the NDAA that allows the President or other members of the Executive Branch to order that you be picked up and held indefinitely without counsel or trial.

Obviously, it’s not like you have to worry about it applying to you. The government never mistakes identities or abuses it powers.

“You accidentally went to a website that – unbeknownst to you – was one that terrorists use to communicate and post in code (like Craig’s List and prostitution)??? Oh, well, we have the power to lock you up indefinitely!”

Resist We Much on February 19, 2013 at 8:51 PM

nonpartisan chose the wrong nom.

It s/b nobrain.

Schadenfreude on February 19, 2013 at 9:20 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Papers, please!

You have nothing to fear from the police its just a cursory inspection! Stand at attention while the inspection continues… my deputy adjutant will ask you a few minor questions… step over to the light… you have nothing to fear from the police….

ajacksonian on February 19, 2013 at 9:24 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

I’m not sure of the word for this type of thinking. Let’s just say this person is pulling our chain or hasn’t taken in much of the world.

rrpjr on February 19, 2013 at 9:54 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police
 
nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

 
Seriously, I love your work. I don’t know if most people realize how much skill it takes to repeatedly emulate this level of uninformed, unprincipled, low-info ignorance with such consistency and precision, but you should (again) be recognized as one of HA’s best at parody.
 
Bravo.

rogerb on February 19, 2013 at 9:58 PM

The number of homicide victims from all rifle types is about 3% of all homicide victims on an annual basis. They are far outstripped by victims from cutting weapons or even “personal weapons” — hands and feet. Anyone who paid attention to the impact (and lack thereof) of the 1994 ban already knows this.

And everyone also knows that this firearm hype from government at all levels, the media, and big city cops is nothing but the desire for them to place their boot on our throats in the end. You need to save yourself the typing and drop the rational argument. This is nothing but little despots that have been hiding in the corners feeling empowered and coming forward. There is nothing rational about their position.

However, this current hysteria makes for a wonderful opportunity to frighten law-abiding citizens with threats of random police searches while doing nothing about the criminals, who will benefit from the redirection of law-enforcement resources.

No. These aren’t silly little scare tactics. This reveals that they feel so drunkenly empowered the real agenda cannot be glossed over any longer. They are giddy about suppression of the serf.

Shouldn’t it be illegal to restrict a Constitutional right?

Colbyjack on February 19, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Inalienable right. Let them create the law, nevertheless, the right remains. It’s when the Brits came for the guns and powder that the first revolution started.

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

You are an utter fool. I hope you do not have anyone that will be seeking your protection in the future. IF the police want to come poking around as described in the crazy lady’s legislation, there is a term for that – Gestapo. Treat them as such.

AZ_Redneck on February 19, 2013 at 10:23 PM

It would also be good to let the IRS (or its citizen deputies) enter your houses without probable cause to see if you’re complying with ObamaCare. That will properly come soon enought

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM

A blast from the past.

lorien1973 on February 19, 2013 at 10:28 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Doesn’t imply I want them invited into my home, though. Nor violating the 4th amendment. ;)

lorien1973 on February 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM

WA plan is to put Democrat public employee union dues paying TSA agents in every non-Democrat home to ‘inspect’ your sub-human lifestyle

DANEgerus on February 19, 2013 at 10:49 PM

This kind of crap is going to get otherwise innocent people killed.

Of course that is what The Head Punk and his minions think they want.

I’ve already done for all the counties in my region, but I suggest y’all do a search on Sheriff Richard Mack, buy his book,

The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope

and mail them to your County Sheriff.

He also has similar books that should be circulated amongst your local police force.

LegendHasIt on February 19, 2013 at 10:51 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

If all police were perfect and all laws made sense, you might have a point.

malclave on February 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM

“Guns have no borders.”

- Boston Mayor Tom Menino

Who wants to bet that he is against border security?

LibLogic©, without it, life would make so much more sense!

Resist We Much on February 19, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy: Booze, Guns and Abuse of Authority
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=4732

This is the same contemptible sack of shit that has been running his mouth about law abiding gun owners.

rayra on February 19, 2013 at 11:08 PM

DHS is training its agents to fire on regular Americans.

You see, in most training, shooting at live looking pictures is frowned on, even those who are gangbanger looking or Whites who look like they are criminals. However, DHS has put out a request for targets, targets that are of Whites and not criminal looking. Pregnant women, old conservative looking men, young boys. Little girls. All Whites.

My God, I wish I were kidding

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/dhs-supplier-sells-targets-of-american-gun-owners/

Bulletchaser on February 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

.
Yeah . . . . . . . . . . there’s some law abiding “black” citizens in every major city in the U.S., who’d like a word with you about that.

listens2glenn on February 19, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Bulletchaser on February 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM

Well, as much as I like to think of pure evil being the goal of every DHS action…

Back in the old days (1970s & 80s) when I trained in “Hogan’s Alleys’ and occasionally competed in such scenarios, there were many similar targets, and none of us were ‘brownshirt’ types.
It is just good training for serious ‘operators’.

I’ll give ‘Butch Napolitano and Co.’ the benefit of the doubt on this one….. Probably the only one about them that I’ll not don my tin foil chapeau.

LegendHasIt on February 19, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Well, there are data points with the ammo purchases and the targets that are disturbing. Tie that in with what appears to be the exact same language being inserted into gun control legislation at the state level around the country, and that tin foil starts looking attractive. The interesting thing is while training for those type of targets (assuming something nefarious), they miss the Leopold optics poking through the bushes from ten typical hunting rifles.

BigFluffyClouds on February 19, 2013 at 11:51 PM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Fear is not the issue, Einstein.

S. D. on February 20, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Looks like somebody let the mask slip.

Dunedainn on February 20, 2013 at 12:34 AM

WA gun bill includes police searches without warrants

So what? As long as Americans remain lethargic this is what their sloth has allowed.

Wake me up when people start fighting against this sort of liberalism.

DannoJyd on February 20, 2013 at 3:16 AM

Let them try warrantless searches. They’ll make a nut like Alex Jones with his “it’ll be 1776 all over again” rant into freaking Nostradamus.

Doughboy on February 19, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I never thought I would see the day where we have to defend our civil rights line-by-line in the Constitution.

We are turning into Nazi Germany.

Happy Nomad on February 19, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Remember just a few weeks ago liberals were making fun of anyone who was concerned about the government going into their homes to take away their guns?

Uh huh.

JohnTant on February 19, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Historically, it hasn’t been just the Libs saying such things are silly. And it hasn’t been just Alex Jones saying that such things would happen.

The Left (or as Alex Jones and Co. would more likely say, “globalists”) work in slow motion, over decades…they nibble away at our Freedoms in such a way that we barely even notice. It becomes an accepted new normal for us as we’re slowly conditioned to accept it. We’ve been propagandized into believing that the timeline is always short like it was in Nazi Germany. This isn’t Germany, though. They’ll take two steps forward, then one back, two more forward and so on.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 20, 2013 at 6:13 AM

Back in the old days (1970s & 80s) when I trained in “Hogan’s Alleys’ and occasionally competed in such scenarios, there were many similar targets, and none of us were ‘brownshirt’ types.
It is just good training for serious ‘operators’.

I’ll give ‘Butch Napolitano and Co.’ the benefit of the doubt on this one….. Probably the only one about them that I’ll not don my tin foil chapeau.

LegendHasIt on February 19, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Did you look at the page bulletchaser linked?
I’ve been on shooting ranges with “good guy” and “bad guy” targets – but you lost points if you shot a “good guy”. Look at the targets – these are not “good guys” – they are regular people, but all have guns pointing at you. That means they are in fact training to shoot at pregnant women, little kids, and old men.

dentarthurdent on February 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

So what? As long as Americans remain lethargic this is what their sloth has allowed.

Wake me up when people start fighting against this sort of liberalism.

DannoJyd on February 20, 2013 at 3:16 AM

.
Too many Americans have found great comfort, satisfaction, and pleasure in living the “Matrix” life . . . . . . . . . . and YOU (and I) better not RUIN it for them, either !
They’re perfectly comfortable where they’re at . . . . . . so just SHUT UP, and go away.
Stop sabotaging their “comfort”.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The Gestapo of the 21st century.

Coming to a home near you.

Then coming to your home.

JackM on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 AM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

===============================

If you have no brain, then you have no reason to be afraid of a shrink.

JackM on February 20, 2013 at 11:51 AM

if you’re not a criminal or planning to commit a crime, then you should have no reason to be afraid of the police

nonpartisan on February 19, 2013 at 6:40 PM

===============================

This guy, or gal, would make no complaint if the police conducted a random ass-cavity check on him/her. Afterall, he/she has nothing to hide. So to speak.

JackM on February 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2