#GunControl: Washington State Democrats forget a little thing called the 4th amendment

Posted by: Phineas on February 19, 2013 at 5:54 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Quick synopsis: Democrats in Olympia have heard their master’s voice from D.C. and have decided to “do something” about gun violence, even if that something does nothing but trample on the constitutional rights of Washington’s citizens. Hence a new gun-control measure was introduced in the legislature to “sensibly regulate” firearms and ban those assault weapons that aren’t really assault weapons but look scary. (1)

And it also gave local sheriffs the right to inspect your home without a warrant:

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.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

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.

The column’s author, Danny Westneat, points out that the offending section has been excised from the current version of the bill. And I’ll point out that a self-described liberal is the one who first spotted the worm in the apple.

But something smells about Democratic claims that they didn’t know the provision was in there, that it surely would have failed constitutional muster, and that it was the fault of an unnamed staffer. (2) More likely they knew very well that the bill included a warrantless search and thought they could slip it through. The fact is that progressives, going at least as far back as Wilson, and whether they know it or not, despise the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the theory of natural, unalienable rights on which they are based, because they stand in the way of them remaking society in their utopian vision.

This is also another example of the parallel track progressives are following on their anti-Second Amendment quest: Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban is likely dead in D.C., but they’re trying to achieve much the same thing in as many state capitals as they can: New York, California, Minnesota, Washington, wherever Democrats are strong and there’s little chance of people paying much attention because the news is so D.C.-centric these days.

While I think the Washington provision would have been chucked out in court, it’s a remind to us all that the price of liberty is unceasing vigilance — abroad and especially at home.

RELATED: I’ve been saying for a while that an assault weapons ban would be useless, and now it turns out a high-power sourced agrees with me — the US Department of Justice. Go ahead, call them bitter-clingers. Meanwhile, it yet another example that gun-free zones are a tragedy waiting to happen, Pirate’s Cove reports that Adam Lanza, the psycho who attacked the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, did so in part because it was an “easy target.” Res ipsa loquitur.

(1) If you’re detecting a whiff or sarcasm and scorn in that passage, you’re not having hallucinations.
(2) They claim they just didn’t read the bill. Gee, where have I heard that before? If true, then they’re only incompetent, not malevolent.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.


17 Responses to “#GunControl: Washington State Democrats forget a little thing called the 4th amendment”


  1. Carlos says:

    Hey, if one is going to trample on the Constitution in one place, why not just tear the whole thing up?

    Isn’t that what Dear Leader wants anyway? And who better to lead the charge than the state that supplied us that pinnacle of intelligence, Patty Murray? How else could he expect to lead us if he doesn’t have the unlimited power of a Kim Jong Un, or Vladamir Putin?

    Or Joseph Stalin. Or of the Khmer Rouge? Or of any Islamist state in history.

    It’s coming folks, faster than anyone could have guessed 10 years ago, or even four.

  2. Even though this provision has supposedly been removed from the final draft, the mere fact the thought was ever entertained is scary enough. But this is typical libtard schizophrenia; they want these unconstitutional gun laws on the one hand but legalize weed on the other.

  3. Jay says:

    The Fourth Amendment’s been largely irrelevant since courts ruled it (along with the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments) doesn’t apply in DUI cases. Why stop there? Just toss the whole Bill of Rights when it’s inconvenient and let the government run roughshod over us at will.

  4. Carlos says:

    Since free speech (if it isn’t politically correct), freedom to worship the Christian God (without restriction and/or interference), freedom to assemble peacefully (unless one happens to be at a conservative gathering on a college campus, especially with a big-name conservative speaker), and right on down through the Bill of Rights, are all disdained and infringed upon by those lovers of freedom, the libs/statists/Democraps/socialists, why should they care about screwing the people by paying attention to violating such an annoyance as the Fourth? It is of absolutely no concern to them, and they can always say “It’s for the children” because that’s their automatic fall-back line.

    Sometimes I get just a tinge of regret that I believe abortion is murder, because so many of them should have been aborted. But that’s only a momentary feeling, then I come back to the reality of them being the way they are because their parents didn’t give a rip about what kind of monsters they were being turned into by lack of proper parenting and not paying attention to what the precious little ones were being force-fed in school.

  5. Jackie says:

    This is definitely a scary possibility and it is very disturbing that they even thought of it. Also, it is true when you say that they government may as well just throw out the entire constitution.