By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A major flap over Washington state’s looming permit-to-purchase (P2P) mandate has erupted, possibly over nothing more than semantics, while there is absolutely no misunderstanding about the cost of the P2P when it takes effect next May 1.
Critics are furious that the permit will cost $126, which will not cover the costs of mandatory safety training which must be completed in order to purchase the permit. Suddenly, there are concerns that a constitutional right is being reduced to a costly government-regulated privilege, from which lower income citizens will financially be excluded.
Adding to the controversy—and perhaps being a separate dilemma entirely—is an exchange of messages regarding whether NRA-certified instructors would be qualified to provide the necessary safety instruction required by the new state law, RCW 9.41.1132, passed entirely by Democrats, without a single Republican lawmaker supporting.
According to State Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Grays Harbor), who also chairs the State Republican Party, the program is turning into a “disaster.” In a Friday morning post on Facebook, Walsh stated, “The WA Democrats’ ‘Permit to Purchase’ firearms is a disaster. Unconstitutional. Poorly conceived. Dishonestly passed. Incompetently implemented.
“Now, the WA State Patrol–responsible for running key elements of the scheme–has pulled the rug out from under it.
“After initially spelling out the details of how the required training elements of the scheme would work, WSP has withdrawn those details. This throws the whole scheme into chaos and will result in lawsuits and injunctions.
“Failure was baked into the DNA of this stupid WA Democrat scheme. So, this failure was inevitable. Olympia shouldn’t pass so many unconstitutional policies.”
Walsh is referring to a message sent by WSP to members of a ListServ P2P group, which stated,
“RCW 9.41.1132 (3) states (bolding added for emphasis): ‘The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, tribal, 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.
“We reached out to the NRA to determine if an NRA Certified Trainer would be considered to be ‘sponsored’ by the NRA thereby meeting the requirement of ‘a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training’.
“The answer they provided is: NO. They said because these individuals are neither employees nor contractors, and the NRA is not involved in scheduling, promoting, etc. of the classes, the NRA would not be considered as sponsoring any classes for them.”
However, in a message from Josh Savani, executive director of NRA General Operations, to Kevin Baird at the WSP—a copy of which was obtained by TheGunMag.com—Savani tries to clarify the organization’s position regarding “sponsorship.”
“While NRA-certified instructors are not employees or contractors of NRA,” Savani explains, “holding a current certification does entitle an instructor to certain rights and privileges that could be seen to make them ‘sponsored’ for purposes of RCW 9.41.1132(3). For example, NRA certified instructors are permitted to use NRA trademarks in promotion of their NRA training courses. We do not allow use of our marks lightly, and use of these marks puts NRA’s imprimatur on any of our courses being taught by a certified instructor.”
Savani goes on to explain how the curriculum presented in NRA training classes “comes directly from NRA.” This established curriculum must be adhered to by NRA-certified instructors, he said.
TGM reached out to the NRA and WSP for comment. NRA’s John Howard, director of Education and Training, stated via email, “We are aware and are working to correct the interpretation.” WSP did not immediately reply.
But none of this moves the discussion beyond the $126 fee, which breaks down as follows: $90 for the permit and $36 for the fingerprint background check. Fingerprinting is to be done by local law enforcement, and there would be a fee attached to that. Sources tell TGM that at least some sheriffs’ departments are not set up to provide this service, and apparently don’t have the manpower for it.
Whether Rep. Walsh’s blistering criticism or the program is hitting the bullseye, it is clear the financial side of the story is taking on a life of its own.
Opinions about the P2P mandate passed into law last year sharply divided, as noted in reports at the time from TheGunMag.com and Guns.com. The latter quoted Republican State Sen. Phil Fortunato, observing, “This bill won’t stop criminals. It will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens, especially victims of domestic violence and working-class Washingtonians, to protect themselves. Criminals don’t wait for permits or take classes. This is about control, not safety.”
