TexasCHLforum.com

I haven't seen or heard this before, so forgive me if it's already posted elsewhere. This sounds like UK style gun control to me.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... 17xml.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'm sure they will get your serial #'s while they are there.

But how will they know who's house to inspect without registration?

This does not surprize me at all coming from the dem's.

What is so irritating about these things is that liberals would not tolerate this sort of thing for one second if it affected them. Yet they have no problem at all stomping all over our rights when it doesn't affect them.

“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.”

Just not sure what it will take for the sheep to be figure out when they are headed to slaughter!

Who is taking bets that all sheriffs east of the Cascades tells Tacoma to get stuffed?

That bit of overreach is making them look silly. And, they're blaming staffers for it's inclusion....

Andrew wrote:That bit of overreach is making them look silly. And, they're blaming staffers for it's inclusion....

Yeah, those law makers are referring to this as a mistake.

But this IS their intent! That is the scary part!

This would be exactly the kind of thing that would lead to this issue:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=63201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SF18C wrote:

Andrew wrote:That bit of overreach is making them look silly. And, they're blaming staffers for it's inclusion....

Yeah, those law makers are referring to this as a mistake.

But this IS their intent! That is the scary part!

No mistake in my opinion. Only said it was a mistake because they got caught with that language in the bill. The drafters of the bill didn't read it, and the members voting won't read it, but when it's passed and discovered, they will just say, "Oh well, but it's the law now" I believe they had every intent of that portion being included in the bill.

SF18C wrote:

Andrew wrote:That bit of overreach is making them look silly. And, they're blaming staffers for it's inclusion....

Yeah, those law makers are referring to this as a mistake.

But this IS their intent! That is the scary part!

Very true.
For a quick aid in understanding where they are coming from, look at a map of the U.S., directly above California you'll see an area formerly know as Oregon and above Oregon you'll find an area formerly known as Washington. If you'll cross out the former states names and add California Annex Area 1 and Annex Area 2, the picture becomes crystal clear.
There are some indigenous populations still that have not recognized the annexation.These population groups dwell in the barren lands east of the Cascade Range, where the Sun actually shines more days than not every year, and have been known to be testy when contacted by Californiphiles.

OldCannon wrote:Who is taking bets that all sheriffs east of the Cascades tells Tacoma to get stuffed?

Even it it passes, and that sounds unlikely now, it says the sheriff may inspect. It doesn't say they shall.

G26ster wrote:

SF18C wrote:

Andrew wrote:That bit of overreach is making them look silly. And, they're blaming staffers for it's inclusion....

Yeah, those law makers are referring to this as a mistake.

But this IS their intent! That is the scary part!

No mistake in my opinion. Only said it was a mistake because they got caught with that language in the bill. The drafters of the bill didn't read it, and the members voting won't read it, but when it's passed and discovered, they will just say, "Oh well, but it's the law now" I believe they had every intent of that portion being included in the bill.

This is spot on. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and played the classic...."how'd that get in there?" defense. I don't care who put it in there....if you're name is on it....you own it!

Robert*PPS wrote:

G26ster wrote:

SF18C wrote:

Andrew wrote:That bit of overreach is making them look silly. And, they're blaming staffers for it's inclusion....

Yeah, those law makers are referring to this as a mistake.

But this IS their intent! That is the scary part!

No mistake in my opinion. Only said it was a mistake because they got caught with that language in the bill. The drafters of the bill didn't read it, and the members voting won't read it, but when it's passed and discovered, they will just say, "Oh well, but it's the law now" I believe they had every intent of that portion being included in the bill.

This is spot on. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and played the classic...."how'd that get in there?" defense. I don't care who put it in there....if you're name is on it....you own it!

I'm with you folks. That is exactly what came to mind when I read the article.