Washington State Wants to Make It Even Harder to Own Guns

Washington State has become downright hostile toward the right to keep and bear arms. Sure, they were still “Shall Issue” when there was a choice in the matter, but we all know that without Bruen, those days were numbered.

Since then, they’ve tripped over themselves to enact any gun control measure they can come up with, and the people of the state are worse off for it.

Unfortunately, they’re far from done.

It seems they figure that if you own a gun, you should have to pony up a buttload of money.

Washington HB 1504, if passed, would mandate at least $25,000 of insurance coverage or something similar.

Here’s a decent summary of the broad strokes of what options people have:

🚨More anti 2A legislation in the separate country of WA.
The insanity has no end it seems.

HB 1504 would require firearm owners to have:
➡️A firearm liability insurance policy or bond with at least $25,000 coverage per incident.
➡️Self-insurance if they own more than 25… pic.twitter.com/ZkUfSVgQzz

— Julie “Florida Woman” Barrett (@juliecbarrett) January 22, 2025

Now, looking at the text, you don’t need all three, which some who read the tweet might come to believe, but you do need at least one of these. 

Further, all gun owners must keep proof of what the bill calls “financial responsibility” on their person and be able to show it on demand to law enforcement or when purchasing a firearm. Failure to do so will result in a fine of up to $250.

Let’s understand that such insurance only covers accidental or negligent discharges. It will do nothing for intentional acts carried out by anyone, nor will it cover actions carried out with the covered firearm after it’s stolen. 

Yet despite claims otherwise, negligent discharges aren’t overly common, especially when you compare that to the number of intentional shootings each year.

These aren’t the problem, so why is there this focus on insurance?

The answer is simple. This is a way to make it more costly to own a firearm and hopefully dissuade people from even bothering. It’s to make it more expensive so the elites can continue to own as many firearms as they want, but the more destitute–you know, the people who likely have no choice but to live in high-crime neighborhoods–won’t.

Yes, homeowners policies and rental insurance policies may well cover this, and I can make a valid case for everyone having whichever applies to their situation, but the truth is that no one should be forced to have such policies in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Such requirements are, basically, a poll tax designed to keep certain categories of people from exercising their rights.

My hope is that this will be too far for Washington state lawmakers, but I’m not willing to put money down on that being the case. That means folks need to gear up for the legal challenges that need to happen should this pass. Unfortunately, the courts aren’t the slam dunk they should be on gun questions here lately.

Still, we can hope that the courts act on these egregiously unconstitutional laws.