We reported back in January how Washington State gun owners were facing a bill that would greatly expand so-called “gun-free” zones to include parks, government buildings and a wide swath of other areas where “children are likely to be present.”
Now, anti-gun legislators in Olympia are piling on, pushing a bill that would require Washingtonians to apply, qualify for and purchase a permit in order to practice their Second Amendment-protected right to buy a firearm.
The legislation is House Bill 1163, which was recently approved in a committee on a party-line vote. The measure will soon be scheduled for a floor vote.
According to the measure, the permit would be valid for five years, similar to the safety courses currently required to purchase a firearm. However, the new proposal requires a live-fire training component and an annual Washington State Police review to ensure all permit holders “remain eligible to possess firearms.”
Since implementing the measure is expected to cost nearly $60 million, Democrat lawmakers plan to recoup that loss by charging gun owners for fingerprinting and for the permit—in other words, taxing them to practice a constitutional right.
One organization going to bat against the permit-to-purchase requirement is the Sportsman’s Alliance, a group dedicated to guaranteeing hunting, fishing and trapping for American sportsmen and women now and in the future.
“Permit-to-purchase is just another scheme supported by animal extremists and gun-control activists to destroy our rights, values and lifestyle,” the organization said in a press release detailing the legislation. “Restricting the freedom of peaceable sportsmen will do nothing to solve our public safety problems. Criminals who are the cause of violent crime in the Evergreen State do not purchase their firearms through legal channels.
The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action is also working against the measure and pointed out in a legislative alert that the state is already facing a $12 billion deficit without adding another expensive—and ineffective—gun control law.
“Law-abiding firearm owners will continue to be the only ones impacted by another gun-control law in Washington,” NRA-ILA said. “Washington State Police data shows that the firearms used in crimes originate from three main sources—theft, illicit sources, and straw purchases—all of which are already illegal means. HB 1163 is another solution in search of a problem, placing additional burdens on the law-abiding while doing nothing to address Washington’s escalating crime problem.”
Incidentally, two other anti-gun measures have also been approved by a committee and will soon be considered on the House floor. House Bill 1132 is a one-gun-a-month proposal that would restrict firearm purchases to one gun every 30 days and would also place arbitrary restrictions on the purchase of ammunition by law-abiding citizens. House Bill 1152 would require mandatory locked storage of firearms separately from ammunition in vehicles and within the home—a matter that should be up to Evergreen State gun owners, not the state government.
RE: “Criminals who are the cause of violent crime in the Evergreen State do not purchase their firearms through legal channels.”
Not to worry…Gun Control an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide will save the children.
Lol and pointing that out will stop the infringement.
“Lol and pointing that out will stop the infringement.”
I think what gets lost in the fury is that we have no way to know howmany new subscribers there are at any one time; people who do not know of the racist history of gun control. That history may spark a response in new subscribers, that wasn’t there before.
“Rules for Radicals” dictates: RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Would help if racism was relevant to anyone who isn’t
1 over 50 and actually saw real examples at meaningful scale
2 a scammer
3 retarded enough to believe the above on the topic
The Dims and fellow travelers proclaim racism at the core of any statement made against them. Real, or not, racism is regularly used to avoid having the to think outside the hamster wheel of leftism.
So, if racism is at the core of all opposition to Dims, they should be made to answer for the racism of gun control. There are new people on the blog, everyday, and they may not know the history of gun control law.
Nah kill the issue, can only ever be a net drain to society as was clearly demonstrated over the last almost 2 decades when Obama resurrected it and used it to excuse poor behavior and lower standards and expectations. Racism is gay and if you are offended by that you are retarded. Also DEI is dead so why even bother with irrelevant nonsense that in the end will hurt society more than it could ever help it.
void you incredibly ignorant troll…Until can pen something-anything that exposes Gun Control and it lands on the floor of the US Congress and halts knee jerk Gun Control you little man can go pound sand.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WlItbl9SOAg&feature=shared
Lol I don’t waste ink even digital on dead topics past mocking them. Power and control are all that matter, better catch up on reality there mirror image miner
on what planet is the whole ideas of a permit to purchase consistent with shall not be infringed.
“on what planet is the whole ideas of a permit to purchase consistent with shall not be infringed.”
Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that “reasonable restrictions” are permissible. Which means infringing on 2A is constitutional, as “no constitutional right is absolute”. Apparently the founders were not smart enough to understand that.
Scalia was incredibly overrated by the gun community… “reasonable restrictions” is a loophole the antis can drive a truck through and he had to know it.
“Scalia was incredibly overrated…”
He was a strange agent. IIRC, he issued a ruling that for people who were involved in agriculture, holding back for their own use was actually a violation of the Commerce Clause. Not participating in a market interferred with the market.
He was just kicking the can down the road.
Regardless, it’s still not consistent.
New York and other similar states.
Would not surprise me if this bill is passed and communist Governer Bob Ferguson signed it. Then let the lawsuits begin. There will be mass noncompliance.
How can there be mass non compliance with this type of law (requiring a permit to purchase firearms)? The state will crush and prosecute any firearm retailer (FFL) that doesn’t comply.
Non compliance works against some unjust and illegal laws, but not others.
Washington gun laws have totally gone to hell over the last decade. It used to be a free state. Now, it is ruled by radical extremists. That’s what you get with mail in voting.
Hi, Art
Seems it has been awhile since you posted here. Glad you are back.
money is the permit to purchase
“fingerprinting” Comrade Lenin? GTH
I am always struck by the fact that every provision of the US Constitution is subject to the amendment provision/process. The means to destroy the Constitution is embedded in the document, itself.
To destroy Gun Control is embedded in Gun Control.
Lol prove it and just to be interesting do it with your words.
This is just another roadblock that doesn’t do anything that a 4473 doesn’t do already. So it is just an added expense intended to discourage people from buying guns.
The proposal to require that ammo and guns be locked up separately seems to me to violate the holding in Heller. It interferes with self defense: “Hold on while I unlock the ammo and the gun and load my gun.”
Meanwhile, the Oregon Court of Appeal said that its restrictive gun law, Measure 114, that requires Oregonians to apply for and obtain a permit before purchasing a gun and outlaws large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, requiring first completing a gun safety class and a federal background check has been declared constitutional. It has been paused because of court challenges. is constitutional. An appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court is anticipated.