Get PJ Media on your Apple

Warrantless Searches Proposed — for Third Time — by WA Democrats

State Senator Adam Kline's "mistake" excuse doesn't fly, considering he has done this twice before.

by
Clayton E. Cramer

Bio

February 21, 2013 - 9:30 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Imagine if Republicans in Utah or Alabama, responding to a horrifying sex crime, introduced a bill allowing warrantless searches of homosexuals’ homes to make sure they weren’t holding little boys as sex slaves.

The national media would be discussing this gross violation of the Fourth Amendment incessantly, using it as an example of how fundamentally fascist the Republican Party is — everywhere.

Cut to Washington State: in this case, liberal Democrats in the legislature have introduced an assault weapon ban that includes annual inspections of the homes of people that already own assault weapons to make sure that they are being safely stored.

There is no need for a warrant; there is no probable cause requirement; and the Seattle Times columnist writing about this clearly unconstitutional law observes that the sponsors include “Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues.”

After a stream of criticism, the author withdrew the warrantless search section of the bill, calling it a “mistake.” Yet, as Bryan Preston points out, the warrantless search section – word for word — was included in bills by Kline in 2009 and 2005.

Mistake? I think he was just finally caught and called out this time.

What makes this especially outrageous: not only are they ignoring the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee regarding warrantless searches and the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms, but also the Washington State Constitution’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

Before liberals attempt to defend not only warrantless searches but also to claim that “assault weapons” are not protected: the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has recognized by name the AR-15 as a constitutionally protected arm.

The case was an ugly one: State v. Rupe (Washington, 1984). The defendant was convicted of murdering the two women who worked at a branch office of Tumwater State Bank. Rupe had left his bloodstained checkbook on the counter in the midst of the robbery, and was convicted on a combination of evidence including testimony of conspirators. No, Rupe did not use an AR-15; he used a revolver. So how did an AR-15 end up in this case?

Rupe was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Yet during the penalty phase of his trial, the prosecutor told the jury that Rupe owned a CAR-15 (the collapsible stock version of the AR-15) even though it had not been used in the crime. The reason: the prosecutor believed this constituted evidence that Rupe was a very bad man, because he owned guns “good for only one purpose — killing others in combat.” (Rupe testified that he used the CAR-15 for varmint hunting, which is not an uncommon use of that rifle.)

Because this was a capital case, Rupe’s attorney filed a long list of exceptions hoping that the Washington State Supreme Court would overturn his conviction or at least the death penalty. The Washington State Supreme Court generally went along with the lower court on everything except one item: the attempt to sway the jury by the introduction of Rupe’s ownership of an assault weapon. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that allowing Rupe’s ownership of such weapons into evidence during the death penalty phase of the trial would have a chilling effect on a constitutionally protected right: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself.” After all, if the exercise of a constitutional right can be turned against you under those conditions, it discourages people from exercising that right for fear of what might happen in the future.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Hmmm....this seems to violate something.....something I read once....something important.

Oh, here it is:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'd say having the police coming into your home any time they damn well pleased to see how you are storing a completely legal item (which is also protected under the 2nd Amendment!) just because they say so is a pretty clear violation of the 4th Amendment!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
AIDS has killed more people than guns in the last 20 years, and is once again on the increase after years of decline. How about this for a law. Since AIDS is spread mostly through intravenous drug users and homosexuals, pass a law that all homosexuals and intravenous drug users register with the state, then the police can conduct unannounced home inspections to ensure that all registered homosexuals and intravenous drug users have condoms available, since the Left believes that sexual contact is going to happen no matter what (see any Leftist sex-ed syllabus). If no condoms are in the residence, or the occupants refuse to let the police in to inspect, a mandatory one-year sentence is imposed. Sounds no less reasonable than making law-abiding citizens open to inspection of their practice of the rights under the Second Amendment.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is an editing error in your heading. It should read "Warrantless Searches Proposed — for Third Time — by WA fascists"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Imagine if Republicans in Utah or Alabama, responding to a horrifying sex crime, introduced a bill allowing warrantless searches of homosexuals’ homes to make sure they weren’t holding little boys as sex slaves."

Then Republicons would be stumbling over themselves and each other to vote "yes".

Of course, there'e always the mis-named PATRIOT Act. How many Constitutional provisions does THAT violate? Kinda ironic, huh? Ironic like how FRWNJs always forget the first part of the Second Amendment which takes it for granted that gunowners are part of "a well-regulated militia".

When EVERY gunowner is a member of that militia, the, and ONLY then, will their complaints on matters such as this be legitimate.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Adam Kline was chair of the Senate Judiciary COmmittee the last time he pushed this bill.. weeks after a madman felon in violation of his parole from Arkansas killed four LEO in Lakewood.. with a handgun (whose straw supplier eventually was convicted of felony charges, the murder shot two days after the massacre). No assault weapon involved at all.. yet he tried to ride on this crime to push hiw AWB. IU watched as he conducted the "hearing" for the committee... HE lied, as did the guy from cease Fire Washington. Both should have been charged with perjury for fallse testimony. NO WAY did he "overlook" the warrantless search language. He is a lawyer, and a liar. Got himself elected somewhere in Eastern Washington to the House a while back. After one term the constituents turned him out. He fled to seattle, waited his time, then ran for office there. They are enthralled with the clown. He should be impeached, but won't be. Recal not possible, the margin was overwhelming. Two terms, now, if memory serves. This man is a sociialist big government control nanny state promoter. The amazing thing is he's hornswoggled two other liberal hacks to join him. It never made it out of committee last time, in spite of the fact he was the chair. AS the chairn, though, he was able to, and did, try and drag it out of the gutter where it had been properly placed and bring it to the floor for a vote at the end of the session. It failed miserably. Here he is back with the same old dead horse.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Democrats believe that it is the "duty of the State" to protect us from ourselves.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If enough people are searched without a warrant and come to understand that their lifestyles and privacy are open to the police at whim then maybe people will catch on to just what this means to America.
It means America citizens convicted of no crimes and with no probable cause can be turned out of their houses just as convicted prisoners are in prisons to search for contraband.
The Citizens become criminals or future criminals without breaking any laws.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is quite clear that the Democrats are on the offensive against the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, they are attacking the entire Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This guys has done this THREE TIMES? What he's really after is control not "protecting the children" its all about controlling the populace.

The think that far too many people forget, is that we, the United States of America, went to war with the rightful government of the then colonies, when that government attempted to take away our privately held arms...

...don't forget that for one moment. If the government attempts, as several states are now planning, to take away leagally owned guns, it might be time for Americans to do something about it.

The State of Colorado, as well as Minnesota and Wisconsin are all contemplating bills that will allow the government to sieze the fire arms of law abiding citizens....think about that for a moment peole. We have a government that wants to seize, by force your guns...

240 some years ago, we had men and women who were willing to die to prevent that...where are those people now?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
those people are now trying to take away your guns so they can retain the position of power they attained 240 odd years ago...

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

--Auric Goldfinger, pointing out the obvious, in Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger."

In addition to being an unrepentant gun grabber, Mr. Kline is a liar.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ah yes - my home state - and current place of residence FWIW. Washington State is in a headlong rush to outdo California - with Oregon Colorado and a few other lefty states all in competition to be #1 in the Nanny State race. We now have gay marriage and its legal to smoke pot at the wedding!

Don't bogart that joint my friend!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What's GOOD for the Goose is GOOD for the Gander:
If YOU can order Warantless searches of my my home and papers, simply because I'm a gun owner. And under your Bill untrustworthy for that reason. Then why can't I, or my Proxies (any of a myriad interested political groups and police agencies) have Unrestricted access to your Homes, Offices and papers based on the fact that you are an Elected Official and by definition Corrupt until proven otherwise.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
One of my life-long friends is a deputy sherriff in a county east of Seattle, on the slope of the Cascades. None of this crap, passed by the state (read Seattle) will carry much weight there. Enforcement would have to come from guys whose boss is elected by a pretty conservative bunch of Washingtonians, and the deputies in that area know that they would be literally in the line of fire. Adam Kline, on the other hand, will remain safely in his gated community along with his asshat constituents.

If Microsoft ever does flee across the border to Vancouver Island, maybe the watermelon asshats that migrated to Seattle from California and New Jersey will go with Gates and his crew. That would have the effect of retuning Washington to something like I remember as a kid.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All