Washington AWB Includes Yearly Warrantless House Search

[Scutter01]

Really, and you actually believe any of these tyrants care anything at all about some old oath...

Gunner

I'm confused by your argument and position here. First, you say that the bill is hogwash, has no chance of passing, and that we should not be concerned (let alone upset) about it, and then you accuse the legislators of being tyrants and oath-breakers. Which is it? You're sort of arguing both sides of the fence here.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm confused by your argument and position here. First, you say that the bill is hogwash, has no chance of passing, and that we should not be concerned (let alone upset) about it, and then you accuse the legislators of being tyrants and oath-breakers. Which is it? You're sort of arguing both sides of the fence here.

Who is winning?

 

[GunnerDan]

I'm confused by your argument and position here. First, you say that the bill is hogwash, has no chance of passing, and that we should not be concerned (let alone upset) about it, and then you accuse the legislators of being tyrants and oath-breakers. Which is it? You're sort of arguing both sides of the fence here.

No, not arguing or even trying to make any point. The legislators that are tyrants will attempt to pass just about any kind of Unconstitutional legislation as long as it furthers their own political agenda. As for being upset, I was only saying BS to the search provision which I never saw, and I have been replying to posts here and other locations telling people there is no search provision. Be upset that the kinds of tyrants that are in elected positions are still attempting to create a nation of criminals.

Gunner

 

[mrjarrell]

No, not arguing or even trying to make any point. The legislators that are tyrants will attempt to pass just about any kind of Unconstitutional legislation as long as it furthers their own political agenda. As for being upset, I was only saying BS to the search provision which I never saw, and I have been replying to posts here and other locations telling people there is no search provision. Be upset that the kinds of tyrants that are in elected positions are still attempting to create a nation of criminals.

Gunner

There is no search provision NOW. There was a search provision before they corrected it. You're running around spreading disinformation about an article that was correct at the time it was written. The only reason they "corrected" it was that it would have been challenged in the courts and found unConstitutional and their entire bill would have been tossed.

 

[Scutter01]

Who is winning?

Just one man. Just one man.

 

[GunnerDan]

There is no search provision NOW. There was a search provision before they corrected it. You're running around spreading disinformation about an article that was correct at the time it was written. The only reason they "corrected" it was that it would have been challenged in the courts and found unConstitutional and their entire bill would have been tossed.

Unless someone can point me to the text of the original bill that included some kind of a Unconstitutional search provision I can only go by what you and others are saying. The first time I even read the bill was around 9:30 this morning and even then there was no search provision in the bill that was on the Washington page.

Gunner

 

[reesez]

Unless someone can point me to the text of the original bill that included some kind of a Unconstitutional search provision I can only go by what you and others are saying. The first time I even read the bill was around 9:30 this morning and even then there was no search provision in the bill that was on the Washington page.

Gunner

Well there was, now its gone, oh well. Now settle down girls, you're all pretty!!!

 

[grahamsy2k]

I don't know how it could get anymore unconstitutional.

 

[2A_Tom]

Here is a link I just found.

Did Sen. Kline

So this isbasically his pet bill that he forwarded in 2005 and 2010.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There is no search provision NOW. There was a search provision before they corrected it. You're running around spreading disinformation about an article that was correct at the time it was written. The only reason they "corrected" it was that it would have been challenged in the courts and found unConstitutional and their entire bill would have been tossed.

I'm not looking at it now, but from what I saw this morning, it had a provision that if any portion was found unenforceable, the rest would remain. Or am I mistaken about that being in there? I was kinda tired so I might be misremembering.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

Shocking proposed law would give sheriff access to the homes of gun owners – Glenn Beck

 

[Timelinex]

Wow this is insane... The funny part is these legislators are getting voted into office somehow!!

 

[mrjarrell]

I'm not looking at it now, but from what I saw this morning, it had a provision that if any portion was found unenforceable, the rest would remain. Or am I mistaken about that being in there? I was kinda tired so I might be misremembering.

Blessings,
Bill

Don't remember seeing it. Not sure it would be up to them, tho. Wouldn't that fall to the courts?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Don't remember seeing it. Not sure it would be up to them, tho. Wouldn't that fall to the courts?

It seems to me to be a severability clause.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any provision of this act or its
23 application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
24 remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other
25 persons or circumstances is not affected.

I could see a court invalidating the whole thing, but the way that's written, the court would have to find something wrong in each portion of it.

Blessings,
Bill