WA gun bill could have major implications for Grant Co. Fair
Senate Bill 5098 passed the Senate on March 5 with a 28-21 vote.
SB 5098, if signed into law, will prohibit the presence of weapons in locations where children are likely to be present, including state or local public buildings, parks, playground facilities and county fairs. The bill defines a "state or local public building" as any building owned, leased or used by governmental entities where public employees are regularly present. It does not include transportation properties, such as ferry terminals and train depots.
The language of the bill says, "Weapons are prohibited on the premises of a city's, town's, county's, or other municipality's neighborhood, community, or regional park facilities at which children are likely to be present."
The legislation builds upon a previous bill sponsored by the same sponsoring senator, Javier Valdez, D-Seattle. SB 5444, which was signed into law in 2024, prohibits firearms in libraries, zoos, aquariums and transit centers. Valdez said in a statement that SB 5098 aims to close any loopholes in the current law and strengthen public safety.
The bill had its first public hearing in the House Tuesday in the Committee on Civil Rights and Judiciary. If passed by the House, it will go to Gov. Bob Ferguson for consideration.
GC Fairgrounds
Both Grant County Sheriff Joey Kriete and Grant County Fairgrounds Manager Jim McKiernan have concerns about the implications of the bill.
Last August during the Grant County Fair there was a shooting that led to a full evacuation of the fairgrounds. The 15-year-old suspect shot the gun once and hit two other minors, one person he knew and one bystander, both minors. The suspect recently pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree assault and illegal possession of a firearm, with enhancement, according to Grant County Prosecutor Kevin McCrae. He was sentenced to 90-144 weeks — just less than two years to a bit over 2.5 years — in a juvenile detention facility.
Valdez said during the March 18 House hearing that one of the specific reasons he brought this piece of legislation forward was because of the Grant County incident.
"The county fairgrounds is a little personal to me because I represent northeast Seattle, but I was born and raised in Moses Lake, east of the mountains, and last year, there was a shooting at the Grant County Fairgrounds during the Grant County Fair," Valdez said. "Which is what prompted me to further look into this bill here, this year."
However, Kriete and McKiernan do not believe that the bill, if it had been in effect last year, would have prevented the shooting.
"The only thing I would say is that the bill is not going to mitigate the situation we had here at the fairgrounds," McKiernan said. "A 15-year-old was illegally carrying. He was already breaking the law. Anybody that's trying to get a weapon in, when you have 187 acres and 4,000 feet of fencing, probably can. It is going to be difficult to prevent somebody that really wants to get a weapon into the venue."
Kriete agreed.
"The 15-year-old violated the law by bringing a gun in there," Kriete said. "If they are not going to abide by that law, I don't know why (lawmakers) think they're going to abide by the other ones in place. I just can't wrap my head around it. So, we're just handcuffing the people that are able to carry firearms; that's who we are really handcuffing here."
The two have concerns on how the bill will be implemented at the fairgrounds.
"It does kind of scare me a little bit if it does pass," Kriete said. "It's going to be really difficult for us to be able to abide by what that law is saying. Until we operate our fair under a dome, it is going to be very difficult to keep it secure because we have the rodeo grounds with the campground that are attached to the fair. We have an eight-foot-high fence that is very breachable by throwing things over the top of it. Metal detectors are very expensive and have to be monitored."
As of now, the bill states signage must be added to these areas to state they are gun-free zones.
"I don't think signage alone is going to be the answer," McKiernan said. "At some point in the not-too-distant future, I'm guessing that we're going to be required to put in metal detectors and go through that whole process."
McKiernan said there isn't money in the budget this year to add metal-detecting devices, which would cost around $50,000 to $75,000 if required.
"My question is, 'Do we really want to impact those that are legally carrying in the venue?' I think there's other ways of increasing safety, including patrol presence, which we are doing for 2025 anyway, and increasing cameras and increasing lighting to try to prevent that type of incident from happening again," McKiernan said.
To address last year's incident, the fairgrounds is getting around $1 million in upgrades including new light towers, lighting at gates, additional cameras, a new public address system and improved fencing.
"I don't think that law is going to change anything that isn't already happening on the books right now, other than eliminate the ability for people that have the right to carry a firearm safely and securely and be able to protect themselves and their family, that they are no longer able to do that," Kriete said. "That's a really scary part of it. I am hoping it dies in the (House)."
There will also be increased policing staff at the fairgrounds this year with around 20 more officers on staff.
"Let me emphasize — people that want to do something, will; whether it is legal or illegal," McKiernan said. "I don't think this bill is going to impact it that much. I think our increase of officers, lighting, cameras and fencing is going to be just as, if not more effective than this legislation."
If the bill does go into effect, Kriete said both he and McKiernan will sit down with the Grant County Commissioners to see how the fairgrounds will abide by the new law.
Proponents
Advocates for Senate Bill 5098 expressed support for the legislation during the hearing Tuesday. The initiative garnered support from educators, shooting survivors and civic groups dedicated to gun violence prevention.
Margaret Heldring, a representative of Grandmothers Against Gun Violence and a resident of Seattle's 43rd District, expressed concerns about the safety of children in public spaces.
"These need to be safe places," Heldring said. "We cannot introduce intimidation, risk, or harm in places where children need to be to thrive."
Reflecting on her experiences as a grandmother, she urged lawmakers to recognize the importance of fostering environments that allow children to explore and play without fear for their safety.
"'Wherever children are likely to be.' That should be our North Star," she said, referencing the bill's language.
Julie Barris, a student at Ingraham High School in Seattle, addressed the emotional toll that gun violence takes on children.
"Guns are triggering, even for people who didn't go through a school shooting like I did," she said.
Barris said the presence of firearms in public spaces exacerbates feelings of insecurity among youth.
"Let's not give kids more of a reason to feel unsafe," Barris said. "This bill will prevent accidents and help children feel safe in our community."
Supporters of SB 5098 remained united in their belief that ensuring the safety of children and families takes precedence over concerns about individual firearm rights, according to several testimonies Tuesday.
Ann Madson, a school principal and child advocate, weighed in on the necessity of creating safe public spaces.
"Public parks should be havens of joy," she said, pointing out the tragic instances of gun violence manifesting in such environments. "We cannot allow fear of gun violence to overshadow the joy and connection that parks are meant to provide."
During the last three years, multiple shootings have occurred in Grant County parks, including one in Desert Aire and another in Moses Lake.
Addressing the broader implications of the bill, pediatrician Dr. Cora Bruner highlighted the staggering toll of gun violence on children and families in Washington State.
"Every year, there are 900 gun-related deaths, and the ripple effect from gun violence affects entire communities," Bruner said. "This legislation provides a common-sense approach to help prevent violence that can't be undone."
Opponents
SB 5098 has garnered considerable opposition from various groups and individuals who argue that it infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, fails to address the root causes of gun violence and ultimately leaves communities less safe.
One of the opponents of the bill was Avine Klein, Washington State Director for the National Rifle Association, who referred to the legislation as a "clear infringement" on Second Amendment rights.
"Since 1998, 82.8% of public mass shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned," Klein said. "The public safety argument is legally flawed, as the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the right to carry firearms for self-defense extends beyond the home."
Klein urged lawmakers not to restrict where individuals can carry firearms, advocating for the rights of citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Concerns about personal safety in the absence of firearms were echoed by Jane Millhands, a Pierce County resident and certified firearms instructor.
"Can you imagine being in your home and two men enter? Am I going to be raped? Am I going to be murdered?" she recounted, emphasizing that no-gun zones often leave law-abiding citizens vulnerable.
Millhands argued that without the ability to defend themselves, women and other vulnerable populations are endangered.
"I want to say that many clubs that I train at, several are on government property, where children are present training to be future Olympians. Is that one going to be shut down by you as well?" she said.
Paul Jewell, representing the Washington State Association of Counties, raised substantial concerns regarding the economic implications of the bill. Jewell pointed out that the legislation would impose costs on local governments associated with the implementation of new ordinances and signage requirements.
"The costs of drafting ordinances, holding public hearings and talking or taking legislative action to meet the requirements to implement this bill will cost counties money," he said.
Jewell urged lawmakers to consider financial burdens on local agencies, stressing that requirements imposed on local governments should come with appropriate funding to offset these expenses.
Further amplifying concerns, testimony from Kim Robert Smith highlighted the potential unintended consequences of creating more gun-free zones.
"Gun-free zones do not prevent crime. They serve to disarm law-abiding citizens and make them easy targets for criminals, who have never followed the rules," Smith said. "This bill will invite and protect criminals to carry out mass shootings. A good guy with a gun is what stops a bad guy with a gun."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
