Wednesday, April 16th, 2014

Washington state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals

Activist Post
Activist Post
February 14th, 2013
Reader Views: 2,452

washington

by Mikael Thalen

Washington state Sens. Ed Murray (D),Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D) and Adam Kline (D) have introduced new gun control legislation that goes far above and beyond what anyone would consider a simple sales ban.

The bill, S.B. 5737, proposes “banning the sale of assault weapons.” According to the legislation, an “assault weapon” is any semiautomatic pistol, pump-action rifle or shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine, with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Any magazine that accepts over 10 rounds itself will also be banned.

Also included in the definition is any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip, a stock of any kind, a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator. The bill also prohibits the manufacturing, possessing, purchasing, selling or transferring of an assault weapons “conversion kit.”

In order to continue to possess a so-called assault weapon that was owned before the assumed passing of the legislation, the person must “safely and securely” store the assault weapon and allow the sheriff of the county to, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to “ensure compliance,” despite some apparent civil liberties implications related to the Fourth Amendment.

Not to mention the manpower, time and money that would be needed to search tens of thousands of Washington homes; it could prove to be very difficult and possibly divert much needed manpower from conducting actual police duties, especially in light of shrinking police department budgets.

The bill also gives no definition of what “safe and secure” storage consists of. The ownership and storage may only be done on property owned or immediately controlled by that person or while engaged in the “legal use” of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range. The bill does, however, exempt possession rules if the weapon is about to be “permanently relinquished to a law enforcement agency.”

Any person who, after the effective date of the section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest or succession must within thirty days either dispose of the weapon or have it permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile. Failure to comply will result in a class C felony.

Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of the state or another state will be exempt. Members of the armed forces of the United States, National Guard and organized services, are exempt when on duty. Also, any federal agent “allowed” to own an assault weapon is exempt as well.

This legislation is similar to a bill introduced by California Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) whose legislation would ban over 120 specifically named firearms.

Others such as President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have come out recently pushing for gun control. Holder gave a stern warning to gun traffickers, despite he and President Obama being involved in Operation Fast & Furious, a program that allowed tens of thousands of firearms to be given to drug cartels that took the lives of countless Mexicans and most notably U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

The program’s supposed intent was to track where guns went in Mexico, but government emails leaked to CBS News showed that the intent appeared to be to use the resulting deaths to blame American gun owners and push gun control.

Video of Holder claiming that American’s needed to be “brainwashed” to be anti-gun was also recently uncovered.

This article first appeared at The Examiner

Mikael Thalen is a political activist and a self proclaimed history buff and current events junkie. He prides himself on being non partisan and standing up for fiscal responsibility and personal liberty in government.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


Contributed by Activist Post of Activist Post.

Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide

Get Regular Updates!     Enter Email Address           privacy information  

Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page


  • http://www.republicofflorida.org JoeRepublic

    These crack smoking commies just keep on adding more fuel to the fire.

  • neslo

    Seen on the web, hilarious!

    http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-valentine-for-those-confused-public.html

    Kind of funny, kind of….from an email

    Big Gov
    and their “partners” have a real conundrum on their hands, they can’t
    figure out whether they should kill us, or make us produce.

    You have
    to feel sorry for them, the sheeple are a real problem.

  • G-DAWG

    As I have said, “Good, let all the wanna be grabbers go on record”. The will be delt with.

  • Mavrick

    I wish I could get my hands on the fools last year that kept saying the government was not trying to take away all guns.

    I would challenger the hackers to break into message boards and post names and address of the idiots supporting and trying to crush the 2nd.

    I would love to know which of my neighbors is a traitor to our Constitution.

    • Smarty

      Hi. To answer your question, I’m “the president” and I’m a traitor to our constitution. I hope that clears up things for you.

  • stalker

    keep tellin it like it is mikael..

  • Bruce

    DICK ACT of 1902… CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government
    Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 – 2:04pm.

    second amendment2

    The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

    ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

    The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

    The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

    The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

    These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

    Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

    The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

    During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

    The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

    The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

    Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

    Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

    “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

    “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

    Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

    The Honorable William Gordon

    Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917

  • melix

    I live in Washington state. Come and take em you crooked mother fuckers

    • Smarty

      I’m not from Washington state (a proud American state of patriots) but I will come and help you to defend your God given rights if necessary. I hope I speak for all my fellow freedom loving and constitunally responsible brothers and sisters. It is not something we should do, it’s something we will now HAVE to do to obey our constitution. Get ready friends.

  • neslo

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/10/would-they-tell.html
    Would they tell?
    If the Earth was going to fly through a “cloud” of meteors, would “they” tell you?

    Supposedly, something as small as 400ft across could have earth devastating effects. What if we were going to fly through a high density zone of meteors say 50 ft to 600ft in diameter? And take maybe 200 serious hits?

  • ILUVMYAK

    Train, Prepare, and Train some more.

  • Anonymous

    fags can get married and buttfuck legally in washington.

  • cody

    fags can get married and buttfuck legally in washington.

    • SKIP

      Who gives a fuck what they do, da gubmint, blacks and muslims are a bigger worry.

Get Regular Updates!
Get Sheeple news delivered to your inbox. It's totally free and well worth the price!
email address privacy
Copyright 2009 - 2013 The Daily Sheeple.
v.8