By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
UPDATE: Washington State House Democrats pushed through legislation aimed at requiring a firearms safety training requirement and a 10-day waiting period.
A permit to purchase requirement was removed. An earlier version of this story indicated it was still in the bill, due to this language:
———————————-
“AN ACT Relating to enhancing requirements for the purchase or transfer of firearms by requiring a permit to purchase firearms, firearms safety training, and a 10-day waiting period, prohibiting firearms transfers prior to completion of a background check, and updating and creating consistency in firearms transfer and background check procedures.”
———————————-
The amended bill now states, “Except as otherwise provided in ((RCW 9.41.090)) this chapter, every city, town, and political subdivision of this state is prohibited from requiring the purchaser to secure a permit to purchase or from requiring the dealer to secure an individual permit for each sale.”
Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1143 was passed Tuesday night on a 52-44 vote, with a handful of Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against the legislation. It will now go to the Senate for consideration.
The bill, which was requested by Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, mandates that people applying for the purchase or transfer of a firearm “must provide proof of completion of a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years.”
As detailed in the text of the bill, the course of instruction must include:
(a) Basic firearms safety rules;
(b) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;
(c) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(d) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use; (e) Safe handling of firearms;
(f) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers and locations where firearms are prohibited;
(g) State laws pertaining to the use of deadly force for self-defense; and
(h) Techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution.
(2) The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a certification that states under the penalty of perjury that the training included the minimum requirements.
(3) The training may include stories provided by individuals with lived experience in the topics listed in subsection (1)(a) through 27 (g) of this section or an understanding of the legal and social impacts of discharging a firearm.
Aaron Lyons, a legislative watchdog for the Washington 2023 Legislative Action Group and director of operations with the Black Rifle League shooting club, told TGM via email, “Again, like before, we see progressive Democrats in Olympia, clearly ignore the unconstitutionality of this bill – (Article 1) SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. ‘The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.’
Lyons did credit six Democrats for voting against the measure.
“As much as it does stink,” he said, “we have to look into the eyes of defeat and continue to push on.”
A requirement for a “purchase permit” and training, adopted in neighboring Oregon with the narrow passage last November of Measure 114, is now being challenged in federal court by the Second Amendment Foundation and several allies.
The bill must still make it through the Senate, and Evergreen State activists are turning their attention to that body in an effort to convince senators to reject the measure.
