Monday, February 18, 2013

Asking Law Makers to Read Their Laws

Is apparently too great of an expection. You know you've made a big screw up when you get a liberal trial lawyer concerned enough to bring an issue to the Times concerning a law proposed by democratic law makers to the Times.  What I am writing about is that individuals have read the proposed assault weapons ban in Washington state, and what they found, was disturbingly Orwellian.
Kudos to the lawyer, I doubt we'd see eye to eye on much, for bringing an issue of civil rights to the Times attention. And Kudos to the Times for bothering to report it. I haven't hid my disdain for the quality of reporting of most media establishments today, more often they fail to do their homework or fail to even report on real issues, but today the Times has done it's job. Now on to the law itself.

What has gotten everyone, even liberal pro-gun control advocates, a little nervous is a little clause in the bill that would give county sheriffs the ability to enter into the house of someone who owns an assault weapon and inspect the premises to make sure that the weapon was locked up.  All without a warrant of course, or any notification whatsoever. Like I said, you really have to screw up to get a reporter, who is pro-gun control, to call a piece of legislation Orwellian.

It also turns out that some of the law makers who sponsored the bill are now expressing concern.

One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
You think? Your job as a law maker is to pas laws, which also assumes that you actually read the damn thing, especially when its only 8 pages! How hard would it have been to take the time out of your day to read the bill? This should not only dissuade statist of the notion that you just need to get the right men in charge, because what does it matter how smart, skilled, or principled the person is if they don't read the bill?! Tyranny is coming to America, not because our law makers are necessarily corrupt or evil, though the jury is still out in my opinion, but because they are lazy.

If a lawmaker, or future lawmaker, ever reads this blog, please, I beg of you, follow this one simple maxim. Vote against a law as a matter of principal until you have read it, and are fully aware of the consequences of said law. How many times has a law maker come out and expressed regret for passing a law that had terrible unforeseen consequences, because they failed to vet the bill? The Patriot Act anyone?

The Washington State Assault weapon's bill is now D.O.A, especially after this article, because even the sponsor has admitted that such a provision is against the constitution.  Right now they are blaming some unnamed staffer for the insertion of such a clause; color me unconvinced. If it were me, and some staffer inserted this into the bill, I would publicly out and fire them. Not only would it be a shrewd political move but someone who inserts stuff like this into law, and there is no argument whatsoever that this provision is somehow permissible under the constitution, has no business being in a position were they can influence policy.

A person once said that totalitarianism would once be clothed in the flag and carrying a cross. I think it is far more likely to end up due to the sloth of our legislators and ignorance of our populace. The velvet glove is something I fear far more than the iron fist.


  1. I hate lawyers. The fact that a majority of our politicians are lawyers says something too.

    Because of them and legalese so many of these laws have to be hundreds, if not thousands of pages to cover every little aspect.

    If it can't be said in normal language it shouldn't be a law. Though that would offend the relativists. That the story you have here involves an 8-page law really makes it all seems useless.

    1. What's really galling in all this is that the lawmakers who have failed to even read the proposed law, i.e do their job, and the law maker who proposed a law and either apparantly didn't bother to look at the paticulars or didn't give two craps that he was violating the constitution, will suffer no consequences whatsoever. They won't be forced out by their fellow legislators or the voting public at large.

      It's times like these that I really question our system of goverment. What good is a republic or a democracy when your leaders choose to not do their job and the voting public chooses ignorance and complacency?

      I can see why Augustus finally scrapped the whole thing internally, taking away all the real power from the senate, but allowed the facade to continue.


Disagreements and countervailing views are welcome, however, comments will be deleted if:

-They have emoticons.
-If it is obvious that you have not read the post.
-Obvious Spam, and it takes me about a quarter second to determine if it is spam since you all write your comments the same way.

About Me

My photo
Seattle resident whose real name is Kevin Daniels. This blog covers the following topics, libertarian philosophy, realpolitik, western culture, history and the pursuit of truth from the perspective of a libertarian traditionalist.