RUSH: From the Washington Times: "Washington lawmakers have pulled a contentious gun-control bill from the state’s legislative tracking website, after calling a section that gave law enforcement authority to enter homes and check for proper weapons storage a 'mistake.'" They actually had a bill in the state of Washington which would have granted law enforcement the authority to enter your house, check your weapons, and to make sure that you were storing them "properly," according to their own guidelines.
"The Seattle Times reports that Seattle trial lawyer Lance Palmer first raised doubts about Senate Bill 5737 to the newspaper, complaining: 'They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.' Mr. Palmer was referring to a now-scrapped section of the text that gave the local sheriff the right to conduct home searches for proper storage guns once each year." Now, you know the left as well as I do. Once they start something, once they propose something, it doesn't go away.
They may have pulled this because the pressure became too intense, but they clearly, in the state of Washington -- and they're speaking for all liberals -- let out of the bag what their intentions are. So all of these people who have projected or complained that what the left really wants to do is to go home to home, house to house, and eventually find a way to get your guns away from you? It is true, and people who have made that claim have been ridiculed and impugned and shamed into shutting up.
Then here comes a bunch of legislators from state of Washington, and they go ahead and make it official. This is under the guise of letting "authorities" from law enforcement into the house to make sure you're storing the gun the way they want. Well, what if you're not? Then what happens? In the story is this interesting quote: "I'm a liberal Democrat. But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover. It's exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA."
That is Lance Palmer, the trial lawyer who first raised doubts. "Violators -- those who wouldn't let the sheriff inside to inspect -- could get up to a year in jail, The Seattle Times reported. Even Mr. Palmer, a self-described liberal, found the provision distasteful. 'I'm a liberal Democrat,' he said, in The Seattle Times report. 'But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover. It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.'"
So you know the lesson.
They'll always tell you what they want to do, the liberals, and they'll always tell you what they fear and who they fear, and when you accurately accuse them of something that they haven't yet proposed, you can gauge how correct you are by looking at the reaction that you get. If they throw up their arms and they start squealing and moaning and talking about how you're a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe you can guarantee you've hit the nail on the head.
So if you've heard people say that the objective of the left is to eventually find a way to get into everybody's house -- in this case, "Just to make sure you're storing the gun right. Oh, yeah! Just to make sure you're storing it correctly," according to them -- and if you're not? "Well, we don't have to get inside. If you don't let the sheriff in, you get up to a year in jail." So they pulled this now. This was supposed to be stealth. They were supposed to sneak this in, but it ended up being exposed.
A couple more things about this piece of legislation in Washington State. Now, naturally it was introduced by two Democrats. They introduced and sponsored the bill. They said they hadn't read it. That was their excuse. They hadn't read the bill that they introduced that would empower law enforcement to enter everybody's house in the state of Washington and inspect to see whether weapons were properly stored. If you don't let 'em in, then you go to jail for a year, maybe. The bill is only eight pages long, and the two sponsors said they had not read it. That was their excuse. (imitating lawmakers) "We didn't read the bill. Don't hold us responsible, why, we just sponsored it. It wasn't our bill. We didn't read it." Why not? It's only eight pages.
One of the sponsors, one of the two Democrat sponsors of the bill, said that he introduced it more as a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go. So it is their goal. What he means is, he never expected the law to pass, not now, just like 50 years ago, 30 years ago, they never expected gay marriage to pass and become an every day common part of culture. But that was 30 years ago. It's quite different today. Now gay marriage and gay rights are the number one issue to the people 18-24, maybe 18-34, at least according to the polling data. So the left works on long timetables. The purpose -- and this guy's admitting it -- the purpose in introducing this bill was not to get it passed. They knew that wasn't gonna happen. It was a "general statement, guiding light where we need to go."
You ever noticed that Democrats make "mistakes" like this in their legislation all the time and they hope nobody will notice until it's too late? But if somebody does notice they just laugh it off and say, "Oh, we'll slip that in later, you know, we didn't really expect this thing to become law. This is just a guiding light. It's just a statement of conscience." But the idea is to get the public used to it. The idea is to get the idea in the public domain so that it is discussed, so that the idea is considered, so that they can then gin up support for it. They can then go poll it and report on the poll results and show that an ever-increasing number of people actually favor it. This is the projected path of something like this. An increasing number of people actually favor, for the children's safety, to allow the authorities to come and make sure guns are stored properly.
"Well, what's the harm in that, Mr. Limbaugh? The law enforcement authorities, they're the experts on firearms, what's wrong with letting them come in and make sure that you're storing your guns properly where your children can't get to 'em? What's wrong with that?" The answer has to be rooted in the Constitution, where you lose people, because the Constitution is not really cool right now, if you haven't noticed. The Constitution is not hip. The Constitution, that's a roadblock to so much fun that we could have. That Constitution, that's just a bunch of judgmentalism. That Constitution is just a bunch of negative stuff that tells you what you can't do. That's not any fun.
So it's the beginning of a long process, and they're willing to be patient, and this is their objective.