GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2013, 18:00   #1
ked
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: tennessee
Posts: 2,294
Door to Door searches for gun owners? Say it ain't so!

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html

from the article.

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.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said

ked
__________________
if a man speaks, and there's not a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong ?

Last edited by ked; 02-18-2013 at 18:07..
ked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 18:58   #2
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,770
What we really need is inspections of non-assault weapons owners' homes. You know, to make sure that they don't have any that they forgot to register.

It's good to see the Dems de-cloak. But remember, there's no difference between the two parties.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 23:18   #3
HarleyGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by ked View Post
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html

from the article.

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.”

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said

ked
Is any state-based pro gun advocacy group, or even perhaps the ACLU going to do anything about this bill?
THis is an outrage!
HarleyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 04:40   #4
jeanderson
Platinum Membership
Toga!... Toga!
 
jeanderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,152
If they really made a mistake, they can just as easily turn around and repeal the law. That is, if they are truly against searches like this by police.
__________________
"I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America."

– Ted Nugent
jeanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 05:54   #5
JBnTX
None
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,852
Every lawmaker should be required to sign a sworn affidavit saying that they've read and understand a bill before they're allowed to vote on it, or even speak about it in public.

Don't they tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse?
Then the same should be true for them.

..

Last edited by JBnTX; 02-19-2013 at 05:55..
JBnTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 06:14   #6
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,612
Blog Entries: 64
The 'mistake' was they got caught...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 06:17   #7
rhikdavis
U.S. Veteran
 
rhikdavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Late Great Planet Earth
Posts: 13,192
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via Yahoo to rhikdavis Send a message via Skype™ to rhikdavis
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
The 'mistake' was they got caught...

Exactly.
__________________
Charter OAF Member
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
rhikdavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 08:03   #8
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,142


From the story even the bills indroducer is claiming they didn't know that was in the bill.

Why not just impeach them for incompetence.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 08:40   #9
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
... But remember, there's no difference between the two parties.
And that is the truth.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 08:46   #10
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
If they really made a mistake, they can just as easily turn around and repeal the law. That is, if they are truly against searches like this by police.
It's not a law. Only a bill whose sponsors don't even want passsed.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:33   #11
Kablam
Senior Member
 
Kablam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,205
yup...and shows how absolutely stupid and emotionally driven they are. They want to do something fast to infringe on 2nd ammendment rights without paying attention.
Kablam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:30.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,209
384 Members
825 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42