Seattle Times: "Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort"

[Marengo]

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.”

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

[gejohnston]

1. expect to hear

more about this during the mid terms.

[Duckhunter935]

2. I am sure

that is just fine for some people here. They will be glad to give up rights for some things. They will also scream the loudest over the PATRIOT act.

[iiibbb]

3. Waiting to hear from the jpak, rdharma, secular motion, and the others who claim people are paranoid

but not you Jimmy the One.... don't care what you have to say about the subject.

[rdharma]

30. Jack booted police state narrowly avoided!

Man, that was a close one!

Come on, iiibbb! I know you like to get scared...... but just relax, my friend.

That idiot overstep was caught early on and deleted.

I don't even see it in the originally introduced bill.

[iiibbb]

31. maybe... but the same phrase has been in previous submissions...

.... so maybe the "mistake" is that people are noticing now.

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/015730.html

I'm not worried... the only "offending" firearm I have in my possession is my brothers. Everything else I have is fairly benign except for a Glock semi-auto I used to use for competition shooting.

[rdharma]

32. vigilance vs. paranoia

There's a difference. Be vigilant to guard against paranoid thoughts.

And switch to decaf!

[iiibbb]

33. I'm probably a lot nicer and calmer than you think I am...

... some things have to be said ...

.... it isn't really paranoia if the concern merely resides in the back of the mind... but that doesn't mean the concern isn't something to worry about. As a more obvious example... one might give Palin the benefit of the doubt and conclude she probably wouldn't inadvertently start WW3 because she is a religious whackjob and complete and utter moron... but one still has to consider the possibility.

[rdharma]

35. it isn't really paranoia

Good! Nothing wrong with vigilance.

The probelm with paranoia is you can't accurately recognize REAL threats.

[Eleanors38]

4. Confiscation: "A guiding light of where we need to go."

Prohibitionists seem to share a common characteristic when going after the thing, status, or behavior (read: people) they hate:

They just gots to get in there; I mean

In there

In

[rdharma]

39. Nobody is going to take your guns.

Switch to decaf, my friend!

[Eleanors38]

45. There are those who want to, and hold political positions to enable such...

as has been pointed out. The rest is just speculation as to whether they will succeed, and how confiscation attempts will play out in future elections.

I'll stick to my mix of hot teas.

[rdharma]

46. The best protective beanies are made with the extra heavy duty (7.2 mil) tin foil!

[Eleanors38]

47. I'll defer to your obviously superior experience in this area.

[rdharma]

48. I'm not the one posting the paranoid rants. NT

[Eleanors38]

49. Me neither. nt

[ileus]

5. It's what they want...CONTROL

It's not about guns or safety, only control. Of course the people that don't believe in 2A rights don't mind subjecting you to their authority.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Daniel Webster:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

It's all good if it's for your safety and protection.

[Light House]

7. I like the part where Sen. Adam Kline says he didn't read the bill carefully before signing on to it

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.”

I foolishly thought that carefully reading a piece of legislation you're signing onto was part of being a Sen.?

I especially like where they try to blame some unnamed staffer for putting that provision in. Why are staff modifying legislation without permission?

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

Looks like they pretty much screwed themselves of any chance of passing any gun control laws in the near future.

Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. Sometimes you have to pass it to find out what's in it. I forgot who said that...

No. I really did.

[iiibbb]

8. Actually it doesn't appear to actually be "mistake" as the sponsors claimed...

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/015730.html

The provision of SB 5737 -- sponsored by Democratic Senators Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, and Ed Murray, designed to ban the sale of assault weapons -- states, "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."

Kline says he didn't know that was in the bill. "I made a mistake. ... I frankly should have vetted this more closely."

Well, that's funny to me, because I recall a certain SB 6396 in 2010, which Kline and Kohl-Welles sponsored, which, regarding "safe storage" of assault weapons, read: "The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

Oh, and then there's SB 5475, also sponsored by Kline and Kohl-Welles, which on the same topic, read: "The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

[Duckhunter935]

9. sounds like he is the

typical politician that LIES.

[Light House]

10. Well, well, well,

a politician that lies? No way.

[flamin lib]

11. Funny thing. As a licensed collector of firearms I am open to a visitation by

the BATF&E to verify my collection and records. Or it could be argued that the "well regulated" clause gives government the power to do exactly the same for non-licensed gun owners.

It's a pesky clause but just like "shall not be infringed" it's in there and has just as much significance as the rest of the 2nd.

[gejohnston]

12. regulated meant well functioning militia

and you are engaged in interstate commerce, not simply owning.

[flamin lib]

14. r.e. well regulated:

Not according to Antonin Scalia.

[gejohnston]

16. according to 18th century word usage

it pre dates Scalia.

[flamin lib]

18. None of that makes any difference. It's what five conservative judges

rule today. Scalia, the most conservative SC judge who prides himself on original intent and texturalism, has written otherwise and elaborated further in video interviews.

[jmg257]

13. I thought the notion was that the people ARN'T part of the organized militia, so

'well-regulated' didn't apply. That whole 'National Guard is the militia' thing.


Are we normal people the militia as mentioned in the 2nd or not? If so, seems unreasonable - & a non-feasance - if the only part of 'well-regulated' Congress would be concerned about is the 'arming' portion. Also would then be argued '...shall not be infringed' would also apply.

[flamin lib]

15. Check with Scalia in the Heller opinion. nt

[jmg257]

17. Thanks, so "well regulated" does NOT apply because the right is NOT dependent on the militia clause.

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause....

[flamin lib]

19. Elsewhere he holds that legislature may enact a variety of restrictions. nt

[jmg257]

20. Of course. But quite clearly "the pesky clause" you mention has NO significance

over the rest of the 2nd.

"the "well regulated" clause...
It's a pesky clause but just like "shall not be infringed" it's in there and has just as much significance as the rest of the 2nd."

[flamin lib]

21. Again, not according to Scalia in a FOX news interview expanding on the Heller opinion. nt

[jmg257]

22. Oh, sorry - I missed that Fox interview (go figure). I read the actual opinion.

So, what did he say on/w Fox?

[flamin lib]

24. Well, he said one of the dumbest things I've heard in linguistic terms when

asked about limits on arms. Asked if nuclear bombs or heavy artillery were permissible he said the text of the 2nd limited arms to what a person could carry, i.e. bear. Notwithstanding the contemporary usage of bear to mean 'to use against', or 'bring to bear' or 'bear against'. Both usages, to carry and to use against, were contemporary in the 1700s. When asked if the 2nd guaranteed the right to stinger missiles and RPGs Scalia said probably but that legislatures could, under the well regulated clause, limit the types of arms to a fine degree. In the Heller opinion he said virtually the same thing using thew M-16 as an example of what types of arms legislatures would have an interest in regulating.

The interesting points were that he limited arms to guns and linked the well regulated clause to regulating types of guns.

The video is out there, google is your friend.

[jmg257]

44. You must be watching a different video then I did. There is no reference

to the well rgulated clause what-so-ever in the July 29th 2012 interview I found.

Asked about banning semi-autos, banning 100 rounds mags - about 'technological limitations', 'guns that can fire a 100 shots in a minute', he said "will have to be decided in future cases" & "we'll see". He explained that the amendment obviously does not apply to arms that can't be hand-carrried (emphasised keep and bear), 'not cannons, but hand-held rocket launchers could be decided on - "very carefully" - in the future'. 'Acceptable limitations are those as they were within the understood limitations at the time (there were 'location limitations', 'frightening laws'). Also reiterated 'arms' were 'arms that could be borne'.


Could you please post a link to the video/interview you are referring to? I am still curious about his use of the well regulated clause in conflict with his opinion in Heller.
Thanks!

[jmg257]

23. OK- listened to the interview from 2012. Scalia explained some things...

but said nothing at all about how the "well regulated" clause may/did affect the restrictive clause.

He did say:
'future cases will decide...'
'Some limitations can be imposed'.
'location limitations were allowed'
''frightening' or technological limitiations were may be allowed'
'Future decisions should be carefully based on limitiations as were understood at the time the 2nd amendment was written'.

[flamin lib]

25. All based on the textural content of the 2nd, i.e. regulation. nt

[jmg257]

29. True - he prefers the textualism and/or originalism approach to

interpretation. 'Governed by the text' and/or 'give meaning to text when adopted'.

He already stated in the Heller opinion the text securing the right in the restrictive clause IS NOT connected to the prefactory clause - so clearly it is not from 'well-regulated militia' that limitations on the right to arms may be imposed.

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
...
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.”
...
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose.

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause...But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause."

[iiibbb]

34. In the hidden duplicate thread someone said they'd like to see the "inspections" in every state

... why not go all the way? Let the police into anyone's home no more than once a year to look for any illegal activity.

If they're there to inspect for guns, and they notice pot... they get to arrest you for pot.

If they're there to inspect for guns, and they plant pot... they get to arrest you for pot.

If they're there to inspect for guns, and their dog indicates for some other contraband... they get to search your whole home. They may even confiscate things pending investigation

If they're there to inspect for guns, and they notice some other "probable cause".


Think police won't abuse these kinds of powers?

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail

[flamin lib]

36. Yes, the potential for abuse is great because it involves privacy.

However, it is a privacy issue linked to a specific product that, legally acquired, necessitates the voluntary surrender of certain private information. NICS background check? Social security number? Home address? All volunteered to purchase a gun.

Your decision. Want a gun? Submit the information and live with the results.

This ain't new, it's out there now. Ref the recent publication of gun purchases by a news paper.

[iiibbb]

40. it's not "potential", the abuse will be great

It is amazing to me when people actually consider throwing citizens under the bus.

Why not just eliminate due process altogether? Guilty until innocent; if you permit yourself to be put in questionable situations then you should have known better. If you are innocent it should be simple enough to prove.

There aren't many legal things one might do where the burden of proof is on you... In most states self defense is one of those things.

[rdharma]

26. I can't even find that requirement in the original bill.

"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.”

I can't find it in the ORIGINAL bill.

Looks to me like that nutty overstep was scrapped even before the bill was introduced.

All I see in the original bill that was introduced is the requirement to securely store the assault weapon.

[petronius]

42. Good catch! The PDF of the bill does say "corrected version", but I can't imagine

that striking out a whole line would qualify as an invisible "correction" - especially if done after the bill was read. Maybe the column was written a few days before it was published (on 2/16), but since the bill was entered on 2/13 there was ample time for the columnist to double-check (given that that bit is at the core of the column's argument, after all)...

[kudzu22]

27. Ok let me get this straight

If you have a legal "assault" weapon, they can come into your house without a warrant and look at it.

If you have an illegal "assault" weapon, they need a warrant to come in.

Sounds like good incentive to break the law.

[rdharma]

37. Neither nor!

The silliness didn't even make it into the original bill!

But keep on panicking if it makes you happy!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. It was removed because they got caught

And, as pointed-out up-thread, this is not the first time one of the sponsors has sought such language.

If the provision had been passed as part of the larger bill I doubt the neo-prohibitionists would shed anything more than a crocodile tear.

[kudzu22]

50. It'll be back

Maybe not this bill; maybe not the next one. But it'll be back in the future because that's what they want. Somebody wrote it so somebody wants it and they're not giving up.

[rdharma]

51. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Well, maybe not this time....... but sooner or later, the sky is bound to fall!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. What did they do in DC when they prohibited the ownership of firearms in homes even for self-defnse?

What did they do in Chicago when they prohibited the ownership of firearms in homes even for self-defense?