Nope. They will not come for your guns

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Don't you think the federal judiciary would recognize that?

Yep. And after a few years, when the first person actually harmed by it has made it to the federal courts (and other have already been harmed, etc.) then a federal court will almost certainly hold it to be unconstitutional.

It's what happens between the enactment and the striking of the law that I find to be troubling and concerning. As well as the attitude of our lawmakers that this is okay.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Don't you think the federal judiciary would recognize that?

Yep. And after a few years, when the first person actually harmed by it has made it to the federal courts (and other have already been harmed, etc.) then a federal court will almost certainly hold it to be unconstitutional.

It's what happens between the enactment and the striking of the law that I find to be troubling and concerning. As well as the attitude of our lawmakers that this is okay.

Lawmakers' cavalier attitudes toward the Constitution have existed since it was first ratified, so that's nothing new.

Re: time lag until judicial releif is obtained, I'd hold out hope that swift injunctive relief, even if temporary pending trial, might be obtained from the federal courts. I think there's a good argument that the "irreparable harm unless immediate relief granted" element is satisfied.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

BS

Part of the bill in Wash State.

Quote

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.”

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

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

BS

Part of the bill in Wash State.

Quote

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.”

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

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

HUH

You think a sherif should be able to enter your house once a year to inspect it if you have a gun?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 236]

BS

Part of the bill in Wash State.

Quote

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.”

No warrent needed as is it covered under the bill.

But it is a mistake of course


http://seattletimes.com/...1_westneat17xml.html

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

what I see here is a complaint about a provision in a new law that violates 4th amendment protections.

What is repeated by the pro-gun folks is "start by enforcing the laws we have before you make new ones". This is one of the new ones that shouldn't have been made.

--
Rob

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

BS

Part of the bill in Wash State.

Quote

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.”

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

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

No. Your misunderstanding is understandable (!); it's a finer point of constitutional law particular to the US. In the US, the Constitution is superior in authority to any laws passed by any legislature. That means that sometimes laws get passed that the courts declare to be void because they violate the constitution. The pro-gun side is saying that if such a law were passed, the provision that allows the sheriff to inspect a home for compliance - without the need for a judically-issued search warrant - would violate the part of the US Constitution that protects people from warrantless searches of their premises. In other words, the "enforcement" to which you refer would, itself, be unconstitutional.

I'm a moderate on US gun issues, and I'm also a lawyer in the US, and I agree that such a statutory provision would be unconstitutional.

[BIGUN 1,486]

Quote

Quote

BS

Part of the bill in Wash State.

Quote

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.”

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

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

No Double Standard.
In the US; entering a home without a warrant is against the law.

And, my thanks to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle for surfacing the issue.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BS

Part of the bill in Wash State.

Quote

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.”

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

So the pro gun side is complaining that the current laws are not enforced, but when they are, thats bad too?

Nice double standard

No. Your misunderstanding is understandable (!); it's a finer point of constitutional law particular to the US. In the US, the Constitution is superior in authority to any laws passed by any legislature. That means that sometimes laws get passed that the courts declare to be void because they violate the constitution. The pro-gun side is saying that if such a law were passed, the provision that allows the sheriff to inspect a home for compliance - without the need for a judically-issued search warrant - would violate the part of the US Constitution that protects people from warrantless searches of their premises. In other words, the "enforcement" to which you refer would, itself, be unconstitutional.

I'm a moderate on US gun issues, and I'm also a lawyer in the US, and I agree that such a statutory provision would be unconstitutional.

Fair enough, good response, cheers.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[champu 1]

I also like perusing these various state awb bills as they all have fun gems in them...

Quote

"Assault weapon" means ...

... If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

... a covering, other than a slide, that is attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially or completely encircle the barrel.

Guns don't kill people... ...guns that fit your shoulder properly, that you can fire while your thumb is below your index finger, or that don't burn your left hand kill people.

I'll tell you what the people who wrote this bill can do with their thumbs...