The right to keep and bear arms is under withering attack in Washington State, but on Tuesday, gun owners and civil rights advocates turned out in force, primarily online, for a hearing on House Bill 1136, a permit-to-purchase scheme which elicited promises from at least two people testifying against it that they would be plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit, should the measure pass.
Literally thousands of people submitted written testimony or signed on to oppose the measure. Liberty Park Press checked with one state senator following the hearing and learned that 2,337 people signed up in favor of the bill, but a staggering 15,906 people signed up in opposition.
The hearing was held before the Senate Law & Justice Committee, and it was clear from the beginning there is no middle ground. Democrat State Attorney General Nick Brown spoke in favor of the legislation, asserting the process for getting a permit, and the requisite gun safety training, would allow a “cooling-off period” for people intending to do harm to themselves or others.
But under questioning from Republican State Sen. Phil Fortunato, Brown could not answer how many crimes may be committed annually by concealed pistol license holders.
Fortunato responded by telling Brown the legislation only targets law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
Some of the strongest testimony against the bill came from Dan Mitchell, proprietor at Sporting Systems, a firearms store in the Vancouver area, and from Yakima County Commissioner Amanda McKinney.
The bill requires completion of a firearms safety training course with a live-fire component, plus clearing a background check.
According to a fiscal note on the bill, this could cost at least $95 for each applicant, and that doesn’t include the cost of training, which could cost well over $100. McKinney contended this fee would make it impossible for people on low or fixed incomes, including people trapped in bad relationships, to qualify for a permit because it would be cost prohibitive.
The fiscal note said the Washington State Patrol (WSP), which would conduct the background check and permitting process, “assumes 100,000 permit applications resulting in cash receipts of $9.5M. For FY28, WSP assumes 150,000 permit applications resulting in cash receipts of $14.25M and for FY29, WSP assumes 100,000 permit applications resulting in cash receipts of $9.5M.”
In a follow-up telephone interview, McKinney asserted, “It can only be acknowledged that this is an attempt” to place barriers in the way of citizens hoping to purchase firearms.
Mitchell’s testimony might be considered the most provocative, as he began by promising to be the first plaintiff to file a federal lawsuit against the legislation, should it become law. (McKinney promised to be the second plaintiff.)
He criticized the measure for essentially requiring the State Patrol to increase its work load.
“You don’t build a bigger house on a broken foundation,” Mitchell testified. “This bill is rife (with) unconstitutional acts, shaded under the auspices of public safety. This bill is a waste of time, a guaranteed costly court challenge, and with zero actual safety improvements…Try to imagine requiring a permit, a delay, a cost, an impediment for any other right, speech, privacy, voting, or assembly. Quite frankly, this is a f— around and find out moment. We’ll see you in court.”
Later, Mitchell’s wife Heidi, submitted written testimony in which she noted, “In November of 2024 the WSP SAFE system was down for 16 days, preventing domestic violence victims yet again from protecting themselves. And just last month WSP notified FFL’s they were no longer able to keep up with the demand in background checks and there would be a backlog until things slowed down. People were waiting 3-4 weeks for a constitutional right. Adding more requirements to WSP, HB1163 will only spiral the system further out of control.”
Aiobheann Cline, representing the National Rifle Association told the committee, “This bill applies to the purchase and transfer of every firearm in Washington. As such, it will fail the Bruen test. This will allow Washington to end the lawful sale of firearms through red tape and excessive fees while ignoring the actual problem.”
She called HB 1136 an “unconstitutional gun registry.”
Troy Nichols, representing the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the committee, “Ultimately, what permit-to-purchase requirements do is deter current and future firearms owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights. While proponents claim the bill will enhance public safety, data from those states with similar laws shows otherwise. Criminals, by definition, do not follow permit requirements. Instead, these burdensome regulations disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens, particularly those in lower income communities.
Last to testify was Frank Plumb, a military veteran who offered to discuss solutions to crime and violence that do not impact law-abiding citizens. He cautioned the committee about Title 18 U.S.C. 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, a federal statute which “makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
“This is going to open the state to civil suits of that type,” Plumb said. “Passing unconstitutional laws with massive civil liability is not the way to (prevent crime).”
Perhaps incredibly, the Seattle Times published an editorial criticizing HB 1163, acknowledging, “HB 1163 would not keep those with illegal and deadly intentions from getting their hands on a gun. In fact, the intended purpose of the bill could backfire.”
