Washington State Has Plethora of Gun Proposals to Consider

Washington state once was pretty good on guns, but that was a long time in the rearview mirror these days. Instead, they’re an anti-gun haven that seems determined to keep upping the ante on Second Amendment infringements.

There’s no reason to think 2025 will be any different.

Of course, the fact that we have six proposals already might be a clue in that regard as well, though I should note that not all of the proposals suck.

Senate Bill 5056

Rep. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro Woolley, proposed Senate Bill 5056, one of two firearm-related measures to come from his party so far. The legislation follows a two-week delay in the Administrative Office of the Courts’ background check system in November. 

The Washington State Patrol nearly faced lawsuits after being unable to conduct the checks during the delay; however, if the majority approves SB 5056, it would mitigate this by directing the WSP to process the work itself if the system becomes inaccessible for at least seven days. 

Honestly, that makes perfect sense. There’s no reason to drag their posteriors like they did. This would direct them to at least work on stuff rather than just shrug and pretend there aren’t any options.

Strangely, there’s a pro-gun proposal being put forward by Democrats, too. Yeah, I was shocked as well. In particular, though, the measure would restore gun rights for felons. Some felonies wouldn’t be eligible–sex offenses, for example–but many others would, including repeated violations.

Obviously, the restoration of rights is a good thing, and Democrats tend to favor restoring rights to felons as a general thing, though they often neglect to include gun rights. This time, someone did, and I’m glad to see it.

However, not every measure under consideration is a good thing.

Senate Bill 5098

Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, and Sen. Rebecca Saldaña, D-Seattle, proposed Senate Bill 5098, which would expand where it’s illegal to open-carry a firearm. If approved, it would expand the list to include public parks and recreational facilities where “children are likely to be present.”

This measure would allow municipalities to decide where children are likely to be present, thus adding to the current restrictions on carrying a firearm in the state.

This one bugs me. A lot.

Open carry doesn’t result in crime. I haven’t been able to find any statistics showing that it does. Criminals don’t openly carry their guns because they don’t want their targets to know they’re armed. They don’t want the police to know, either. So prohibiting open carry doesn’t make anyone safer.

Further, this seems that this is really about the fact that children might be in proximity of a firearm and might actually see one. Why, if people see regular, everyday people carrying guns, they might get the idea that guns aren’t somehow the exclusive provenance of criminals and law enforcement. We can’t have that.

Then we have one that seeks to curtail “bulk” purchases of guns and ammo.

Rep. Darya Farivar, D-Seattle, Rep. Tim Ormsby, D-Spokane, and Rep. Cindy Ryu, D-Shoreline, proposed House Bill 1132. The measure would limit “bulk” purchases and transfers of firearms and ammunition over any given month if approved. 

The proposal doesn’t directly define “bulk.” Still, it prohibits dealers from selling or transferring more than one firearm and a maximum of 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or 1,000 rounds of any other caliber to an individual within a 30-day period.  

While 1,000 rounds sound like a lot, enthusiasts often buy in “bulk” to curb costs, as a typical range day could include shooting hundreds of rounds. If approved, individuals could face a $500 penalty upon first conviction, with a misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor for repeated violations. 

In other words, it’s gun and ammo rationing.

Let’s be real here, competitive shooters may go through thousands of rounds–plural–per month in order to remain competitive. This would make it impossible for them to do that lawfully.

Plus, people often want to buy more than one gun in a month. There’s no reason to prohibit that in the least. Criminals aren’t buying their guns from gun stores, after all, and they’re damn sure not going to adhere to any gun rationing law.

Of course, these are just proposals. We’ll have to see if any of these gain any traction.