Those in the Seattle area take note

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dbp

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
418
Location
SC
Nah!! They don't want to hassle us on gun control. They just want sensible laws passed to make everyone safer. Really!! Check this out.

here

Seattle Times said:
One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake...
Click to expand...
This reporter is just upset that they may have overreached.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't get your link to work. Seattle is a very beautiful place but I would never want to live there. I tell people all the time that it's a great place to visit, couldn't stand living there. Moving out was the second greatest decision I ever made. If I were to ever move back I'd stay clear of King County altogether. Plenty of great places to live in WA, I don't count Seattle or King County among them.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't sound like it's specifically a Seattle issue. Since it's being brought up in Olympia it's going to be a State wide issue. Would love to see the logistics on this. Good luck WA.....

. “We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”
Click to expand...

I would really like to know Murray's definition of "win" in this case and what it entails.....
 
Last edited:
sorry about the link - thanks for the fix Derek. Should of had my 6 yr old grandson to do it for me.:p
 
Sounds like it is built to fail. The sponsors even admit it won't pass constitutional muster. Thank them for wasting time and money.
 
just to give some background info, Danny Westneat, the author of this piece is a very outspoken anti over at Seattle Times. I guess even anti-gun libs have their limits as far as government overreach is concerned...?
 
I loved the quote that one of the sponsors of the bill hadn't read this part and should have "vetted" the bill more closely... Of course the other option would have been him reading it and being okay with the provision.
 
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
Click to expand...

If there is a silver lining in all this anti-gun furor, it is that some truly anti-American legislators are showing their true colors. This wasn't a misstep. This was part of the vision some folks have for the future of this country.
 
Read the closing, and you find the end game:
Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

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

Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or [email protected]
Click to expand...

Woops, they put next years bill in INSTEAD of this years...
 
Midnight Oil said:
just to give some background info, Danny Westneat, the author of this piece is a very outspoken anti over at Seattle Times. I guess even anti-gun libs have their limits as far as government overreach is concerned...?
Click to expand...
No, no. Government overreach is fine with him as long as it suits his purpose. He is upset that it may have ruined, or at least made more difficult, the outcome he and others of his ilk yearn for.
 
Remember, the fight on gun rights is framed by the anti crowd (who gets lots and lots of money from this)

They use general confusion and IGNORANCE to advance their arguement
you point out that it's illegal -> most will go "HUH, but the guy just went to the other state"

Lies and purposely false misrepresenting laws and data, bigoted attacks (remember the NRA=KKK, ALL gun owners are white racist pigs (yes that includes all of us of a darker shade) Claims that the NRA is a terrorist org. arming crazy people and criminals....

this is their game, don't believe me, go check out the Democratic Underground, youwill be scared, these people have NO problem with the feds kicking in your door to take guns, taxing ammo out of existence and a system like Australia where you are so tightly controlled that you can be summarily jailed for possessing ammo in a caliber NOT on your registration card.

That's the future they look for, they DON'T CARE ABOUT CRIME
 
Lemme tell ya something about the Puget Sound area, gents... there's a reason so many around here own boats, and it ain't just the plentiful waters to use 'em on...

Yes, Virginia, the BS out of Olympia and Seattle DOES get That Deep. Time to MAN THE LIFEBOATS again!
 
It only takes a few jerks coming out of Seattle to ruin it for the rest of the state. "Schwinn" McGinn and his lackey buddies keep trying to raise a fuss, even admitting they have no traction. I guess "will of the people" only matters if it aligns with their personal worldviews.
 
Just to use the chance to make the lib-***** bleed through their eyes...a pro gun rep should have added that the sherrif would have to go to every computer owners home to check it...looking for child porn.

I mean, if they're going after the gun ownners...make it uncomfortable for EVERY citizen. :evil:

Mark
 
They already cut the police part out of the bill, but the rest of it is still on the table. As for not reading it closely enough, it's only 8 pages long and half of that is definitions and tables that don't need to be read. I read it several times in under ten minutes, and that's only because I was attempting to find the part that had already been removed. Any who claimed that they "accidentally" signed off on this is either an incompetent moron or a liar. I'll let them make that determination for themselves.

Take a look at their definition of "assault weapon." If I understand this correctly, my Ruger MkIII will be an assault weapon. (Threaded muzzle.) I'm still not sure how this will interact with existing concealed carry laws; if my carry piece is an assault weapon, do I have to transport it in a separate locked container in an unloaded condition? And as I saw no disclaimer for LEOs that are off duty, will they have to do this as well?

The individuals who endorsed this steaming heap of dung have at least one thing in common with me, though - neither of us expect it to pass. Good of them to tip their hands this early though. Maybe we can get another gun buyback going, as the last one was such a rousing success. (Actually, as it turned into an impromptu gun show, I'd welcome another. I'm looking to buy a few things at non-panic prices.)
 
Maybe those Previous contents in that proposed bill should be broadcast far and wide by the NRA?
Or is it just something that would be copied in the PDR of Chicago, NY, MA, CO, CA etc?
 
this is the canned response I got back from one of the bill sponsors, she didn't even take the time to read the less than 8 pages of actual content. it is an insult that these people are considered our representatives.

Thanks for your message as well as your civil tone in providing me with your reasons for opposing the bill. While reasonable people can of course disagree on legislation, and while I do still believe that some types of weapons may not be needed to protect one’s family, self, home and property, I understand why some are particularly upset about the bill as introduced. It came to my attention that there had been an error in the preparation of the bill relating to including the language permitting a sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners which is not what I understood to be in the bill. If I had known that it was, I would not have signed on as a sponsor. Of course I should have read the bill in its entirety prior to signing onto it; however, I received a briefing on it without mention of the warrantless search language.

Here is what happened:

1. The bill was drafted by Senate Committee Services staff, using an old version of a bill introduced in previous sessions. This version included language (not requested by the sponsors this session) allowing the sheriff to search a residence to ensure assault weapons were securely stored. This was in Section 2 (5) (a).
2. Once the error was discovered and shown to CLEARLY have been a drafting error, and with approval by the Secretary of the Senate, the Code Reviser was able to correct the bill. The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Rodney Tom, agreed to have the bill corrected to the sponsors’ original intent.
3. The Code Reviser corrected the bill on Friday. If you now read Section 2 (5) (a) you can see the language is no longer included.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Anti-gunners: "We NEED more massacres of school-children"
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
Zero_DgZ
Z
O
  • Locked
CCRKBA: ‘Seattle Police Blotter Blows Holes in Gun Control Myth’
Replies
12
Views
817
JTHunter
JTHunter
J
  • Locked
Jamieson of Seattle PI Hits "Megalomaniac mayor"
Replies
2
Views
598
Standing Wolf
S
A
  • Locked
No new ban after all?
Replies
6
Views
777
LKB3rd
L
J
  • Locked
Police chief should take care of his own guns before regulating everyone elses.
Replies
24
Views
2K
Dain Bramage
Dain Bramage
Back
Top