Yesterday's lamentations by the Seattle Times that a proposed AWB was unlikely to pass because it included provisions that would allow your County Sheriff to perform an annual inspection has actually given me fodder for two posts. In addition to the whole 'inspection requirement' itself, we get this nugget:
'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.
“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.” '
Sometimes, we need a second course:
The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.
“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.
God Save the Republic.
Hey...so they made a mistake. But...it's one thing to vote on a bill you haven't read 100% of...it's another to SPONSOR that bill.
At least those Seattle Democrats got to get their name on a AWB Bill. I'm sure they won't make a mistake like THAT again.
Except, at least in the case of Mr. Kline, he already did. You see, Adam Kline introduced a very similar bill back in 2009, right down to the annual inspection clause.
And now he acts surprised and says he didn't properly vet the bill this time around.
Must be nice to have that (D) after your name in Seattle...it doesn't matter what you say or which bills you read.
I just described the mind of a woman. If you want to understand, read what I wrote and what you just wrote... then understand why I am against women being allowed the vote, beyond a constitutional exclusion from the beginning, though I would exclude non-taxpayers as well but at least that is merely on an economic reality. Or... just continue to complain without wondering further. Knowledge is a fearful thing.
ReplyDelete