rushmc 23 #1 February 18, 2013 BS Part of the bill in Wash State. QuoteIn 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.” No warrent needed as is it covered under the bill. But it is a mistake of course http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #2 February 18, 2013 This isnt the only state liberals have been trying to enact laws which would put law enforcement in harms way going door to door confiscating firearms. -------------------------------------------------- Missouri Democrats are trying to rid the state of assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines. Democrats in the state House have proposed a bill that would force gun owners to either surrender or destroy weapons including semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and semi-automatic pistols with a fixed magazine that can shoot more than 10 rounds before being reloaded. Ammunition-feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds also would be banned. Owners also could send their weapons to another state instead of surrendering or destroying them and would have 90 days after the bill’s passage to make a decision. However, the measure, backed by St. Louis-area lawmakers, is not expected to pass in the Republican-controlled House. “The only way this bill will pass is if a hammer and sickle is sewn onto Old Glory,” tweeted state Rep. Caleb Jones, a Republican. One of the bill’s sponsors, state Rep. Rory Ellinger, said last week he is a “realist” about the bill’s chances of passage but is serious about “some kind of control of weaponry.” The proposal was made following the Dec. 14, 2012, fatal shootings of 20 first-graders and six adults in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. It also follows President Obama and fellow Democrats in the Senate trying to tighten gun laws, including universal background checks and bans similar to those posed by the Missouri Democrats. The Missouri measure also would make manufacturing and importing such weapons a felony. Ellinger said his measure focuses on only “military-style” weapons and doesn’t include handguns or hunting rifles, with Missouri being a largely conservative state. Another Democrat-sponsored bill proposed this year in the state General Assembly would require parents to notify their child’s school if they own a firearm. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/17/mmissouri-democrats-propose-forcing-some-gun-owners-to-destroy-surrender/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 February 18, 2013 It's not the guns they'll be looking for. But they are doing it for the children. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #4 February 18, 2013 One of the bill’s sponsors, state Rep. Rory Ellinger, said last week he is a “realist” about the bill’s chances of passage but is serious about “some kind of control of weaponry.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #5 February 18, 2013 QuoteIt's not the guns they'll be looking for. But they are doing it for the children. Kind of like how the progressives felt the need to protect a 4 year old girl from her father by arresting the father and searching his home without a warrant all because the 4 year old drew a picture with crayons of a stick man (who was described as the girl's father) holding what looked like a gun fighting the bad guys and monsters. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/24/ont-dad-arrested-after-daughter-draws-picture-of-gun-reports Oh and what did the police find in the man's home after they arrested him, taking the children away from the parents and searching the home without a warrant? They found a nerf gun. When the school's superintendent was asked "Did you overreact", his response was "No I would do it again". Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #6 February 18, 2013 QuoteOne of the bill’s sponsors, state Rep. Rory Ellinger, said last week he is a “realist” about the bill’s chances of passage but is serious about “some kind of control of weaponry.” Translation: I am a politician who is trying to get votes from people who are willing to ignore that my idea failed because it was broken and not because my political adversaries are evil or distant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #7 February 18, 2013 QuoteBS Part of the bill in Wash State. QuoteIn 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.” No warrent needed as is it covered under the bill. But it is a mistake of course http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html What exactly is the problem you have with a requirement to store a gun in a safe manner? Why do you want unsafe storage?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #8 February 18, 2013 This thread is about the bill trying to be passed whereby making unconstitutional searches on a yearly basis in residences searching for firearms. But then I wouldnt expect you to say anything that actually made sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 February 18, 2013 QuoteWhat exactly is the problem you have with a requirement to store a gun in a safe manner? Why do you want unsafe storage? The issue is not the requirement of safe storage. The issue is that the rule authorizes a sheriff to enter a property and search it. Which points out, again, those pesky Constitutional issues with gun control. The Left is like a drone attacking a "suspected terrorist." It wants to take out the Second Amendment, and if the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, etc, are lost it's just "collateral damage." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 February 18, 2013 Quote This thread is about the bill trying to be passed whereby making unconstitutional searches on a yearly basis in residences searching for firearms. But then I wouldnt expect you to say anything that actually made sense. Demonstrated intellectual dishonesty Again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 February 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteWhat exactly is the problem you have with a requirement to store a gun in a safe manner? Why do you want unsafe storage? The issue is not the requirement of safe storage. The issue is that the rule authorizes a sheriff to enter a property and search it. Which points out, again, those pesky Constitutional issues with gun control. The Left is like a drone attacking a "suspected terrorist." It wants to take out the Second Amendment, and if the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, etc, are lost it's just "collateral damage." Although you're correct about what Constitutional issue is in play here, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you're using the same silly broad brush that the kool-aid drinkers do to blanket-slander "the Left". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #12 February 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat exactly is the problem you have with a requirement to store a gun in a safe manner? Why do you want unsafe storage? The issue is not the requirement of safe storage. The issue is that the rule authorizes a sheriff to enter a property and search it. Which points out, again, those pesky Constitutional issues with gun control. The Left is like a drone attacking a "suspected terrorist." It wants to take out the Second Amendment, and if the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, etc, are lost it's just "collateral damage." Although you're correct about what Constitutional issue is in play here, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you're using the same broad brush that the kool-aid drinkers do to blanket-slander "the Left". You're surprised? I'm not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 February 18, 2013 More evidense of your point http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/02/17/chicago-police-chief-second-amendment-is-a-danger-to-public-safety/ QuoteChicago Police Chief: Second Amendment Is A Danger To Public Safety But I actually do not think it is a much a 2nd Amendment issue to him as it is one of his personal power in the City"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #14 February 18, 2013 Although you're correct about what Constitutional issue is in play here, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you're using the same silly broad brush that the kool-aid drinkers do to blanket-slander "the Left". pretty sure you make as many jabs to the right which could be considered slanderous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #15 February 18, 2013 But for the most part I don't really care much for, or about, DZ.com politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #16 February 18, 2013 Quote Quote Quote What exactly is the problem you have with a requirement to store a gun in a safe manner? Why do you want unsafe storage? The issue is not the requirement of safe storage. The issue is that the rule authorizes a sheriff to enter a property and search it. Which points out, again, those pesky Constitutional issues with gun control. The Left is like a drone attacking a "suspected terrorist." It wants to take out the Second Amendment, and if the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, etc, are lost it's just "collateral damage." Although you're correct about what Constitutional issue is in play here, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you're using the same silly broad brush that the kool-aid drinkers do to blanket-slander "the Left". Now you resort to whinning? Good grief "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #17 February 18, 2013 Quotethe right grrrrr.. those fuckers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #18 February 18, 2013 It reminds me of those kids toys from long ago where they would be two tiny boxers on some small plastic pedistal and the each of them could only box in one direction. Youd have to press a button on the base to get each one of them to throw a punch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 February 18, 2013 QuoteI'm surprised and a little disappointed that you're using the same silly broad brush that the kool-aid drinkers do to blanket-slander "the Left". You are correct. It was overbroad and out of line. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #20 February 18, 2013 QuoteIt reminds me of those kids toys from long ago where they would be two tiny boxers on some small plastic pedistal and the each of them could only box in one direction. Youd have to press a button on the base to get each one of them to throw a punch. Rockem Sockem Robots ? (probably not spelled correctly) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #21 February 18, 2013 Very similar but the one I'm talking about had two guys that looked alot like boxers. But you have the idea. this isn't it but its still pretty kewl anyway. The likeliness is uncanny http://www.amazon.com/Big-Mouth-Toys-Obama-Punching/dp/B005PPMP7Q Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #23 February 18, 2013 QuoteBS Part of the bill in Wash State. QuoteIn 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.” No warrent needed as is it covered under the bill. But it is a mistake of course http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html I'm not for the ban but reading that it says nothing about coming to take away you guns old chap.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 February 18, 2013 QuoteI'm not for the ban but reading that it says nothing about coming to take away you guns old chap Correct. It's using guns as a way to sidestep the 4th Amendment. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #25 February 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteI'm not for the ban but reading that it says nothing about coming to take away you guns old chap Correct. It's using guns as a way to sidestep the 4th Amendment. Don't you think the federal judiciary would recognize that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
