Permit-to-purchase clears Washington Senate, heads back to House
Apr. 15—OLYMPIA — Legislation requiring residents to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm has cleared another hurdle after the Washington Senate backed the proposal Monday in a party-line vote.
A version of the bill previously cleared the House of Representatives, but the proposal will return to the House after the Senate adopted amendments. The updated bill must clear the House chamber before heading to Gov. Bob Ferguson's desk.
"This is not about us versus them, this is about safety," Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, said Monday. "It's about ensuring that our children are not accidentally shot, which has been happening more and more. It's about making sure that guns are not lying in a closet. It's about making sure that people actually know how to handle a gun when they get it."
If adopted, the bill would require a potential buyer to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm and prove that the purchaser has completed a firearms training course, among other requirements. Proponents of the bill have argued that 12 other states have adopted similar legislation and that it has been shown to reduce gun violence.
"It has also curbed illegal gun trafficking, and it makes sure that our firearms in this state are in the hands of responsible gun owners," Sen. Marko Liias, D-Edmonds, said on the Senate floor Monday. "It is ultimately about saving lives. That is the most important mission."
According to Liias, the 12 states that previously implemented permit-to-purchase have seen an 11% decline in firearm homicides in urban counties and 56% fewer mass shootings.
Liias said the process to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm is "designed to be relatively simple." Liias added that the system would be checked annually to ensure that the holder remains legally eligible for the permit, adding a "critical safety layer."
Detractors, though, fear the new live-fire training requirements to obtain a permit would result in backlogs at firing ranges and with the Washington State Patrol, which will oversee the implementation of the new permit.
Jeremy Ball, owner of Sharpshooting Indoor Range and Gun Shop, previously told The Spokesman-Review that "without a massive, massive, investment from Washington state in order to develop these programs and execute them, it's going to be at an extreme cost."
"And the premise of them doesn't really make sense anyways," Ball said after the bill cleared the House last month.
Under the bill, an applicant would need to prove that they have completed a certified live firearm safety course in the previous five years, or that they are exempt from the requirement. The permit would also need to be renewed every five years.
Sen. Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, said on the Senate floor that the bill will likely "generate litigation immediately," adding that similar legislation has been challenged in other states.
"So it's not just 'Yes, everything is going full speed ahead on this.' This is a controversial issue," Holy said.
Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, said the bill is an "assault on the hardworking taxpayers." In his remarks, Schoesler cited several other proposals to increase fees in Washington that have been introduced, including increasing the price of a yearly Discover Pass to use state parks and hunting licenses.
"There is absolutely no way that that average taxpayer out in Othello isn't going to get hit trying to legitimately buy a firearm, upgrade a firearm," Schoesler said. "There's absolutely no way."
The bill, Schoesler said, will also create unnecessary delays and referred to the bill as "poorly designed."
The proposal is among several gun and ammo-related pieces of legislation lawmakers have considered this session, though many others failed to gain traction and will not advance in 2025. Bills that would have imposed a new 11% tax on ammo and banned the bulk sale of ammunition died in committee earlier this session.
Lawmakers also are considering a bill to restrict open carry of firearms in areas "where children are likely to be present," which includes playgrounds, zoos, transit centers, county fairgrounds when the fair is open to the public and certain state and local public buildings. The bill would require warning signs to be posted where weapons are prohibited.
The legislation previously cleared the Senate and is under consideration in the House.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 minutes ago
Michigan House Republicans sue the secretary of state over election training materials
KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- Michigan Republicans are suing the battleground state's top elections executive over access to election training materials. The lawsuit filed Thursday is the latest escalation in a brewing dispute that began when the GOP took majority control of the state's House of Representatives last year. Since winning control of the chamber in the 2024 election, statehouse Republicans have repeatedly scrutinized the state's election processes and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026. The conflict comes as some state Republicans echo past false claims of election fraud in Michigan, which was a prime target of President Donald Trump and his backers after his 2020 election loss. Republicans on the chamber's Oversight Committee subpoenaed Benson in April, seeking access to training materials for local clerks and staff who administer elections, including access to the Bureau of Elections' online learning portal. Benson's office released some requested materials in response to the subpoena, but not all, citing cybersecurity and physical security concerns related to administering elections and the voting process. The office has said it needs to review the online portal for 'sensitive information" and make redactions. 'Since the beginning of this saga, Secretary Benson has asked lawmakers to let a court review their request for sensitive election information that, in the wrong hands, would compromise the security of our election machines, ballots and officials,' Michigan Department of State spokesperson Cheri Hardmon said in a statement Thursday. House Republicans say the goal of reviewing the material is to ensure clerks are trained in accordance with Michigan law. The House voted along party lines in May to hold Benson in contempt for not completely complying with the subpoena. The request for training materials originally came from GOP state Rep. Rachelle Smit, who has pushed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Smit is the chair of the House elections committee, which was renamed to the Elections Integrity Committee with the new Republican majority. 'Secretary Benson has proven she is unwilling to comply with our subpoena and Michigan law,' Rep. Smit said in a statement Thursday. 'She's skirted the rules and done whatever she could to avoid public scrutiny. It's become overwhelmingly clear that she will never release the training materials we're looking for without direction from a court." The lawsuit asks the Michigan Court of Claims to intervene and compel Benson to comply with the subpoena. 'The public interest is best served if the constitutional order of the State of Michigan is preserved and the Legislature can properly perform its duty to regulate the manner of elections in the state and, if deemed necessary, enact election laws for the benefit of Michigan residents,' the lawsuit says. Benson gained national attention for defending the results of the 2020 election in the face of Trump's attempts to undercut the outcome nationwide and in Michigan. Multiple audits — including one conducted by the then-Republican-controlled Michigan Senate — concluded former President Joe Biden won the state in 2020 and that there was no widespread or systemic fraud. Benson has remained a subject of GOP scrutiny this year. A Republican state representative introduced three articles of impeachment against Benson on Tuesday, and several of the accusations continue to cast doubts on the results of the 2020 election. With Democrats in control of the state Senate, it's unlikely the impeachment articles will result in a conviction.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Medicaid spending in Mass. has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. It needs reform.
Advertisement Medicaid was The cost of this is staggering. The budget for the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, has to over Advertisement But this explosion in the cost of Medicaid begs the question: Has all this spending led to better health outcomes? Surprisingly, Despite these findings, even modest Medicaid reform in Republican proposals before Congress — like encouraging community engagement through volunteering or work, preventing duplicate payments to insurers, and closing state-level However, it should be noted that the current proposals in Washington — which the House passed last week and are now in the Republican-controlled Senate — will result in more Medicaid spending over 10 years, not less. The bill merely slows the rate of growth. Only in Washington, D.C., is more spending decried as a cut. The fundamental issue remains: Are we prioritizing the right goals? Advertisement The evidence on the power of connection is . Past state-level experiments with work engagement in programs like food stamps and welfare cash assistance offer a promising road map. A Medicaid reform could similarly refocus state efforts on connecting enrollees with community engagement rather than solely maximizing federal funding. Encouragingly, these past reforms also saw a halving of the time individuals needed to stay on public assistance. Shouldn't we celebrate if someone like J.D. could earn enough to transition to employer-based or ACA coverage? Sadly, too often, critics characterize any transition off Medicaid as Advertisement While Medicaid reform often faces bipartisan heartburn, paradoxically there's longtime bipartisan agreement that major entitlement programs are growing unsustainably. If we can't at least slow the rate of growth, in part by delivering better outcomes, then our fiscal house of cards may fall, which hurts the most vulnerable. Our leaders must shift the debate from simply protecting the flow of federal dollars to ensuring that every Medicaid dollar genuinely improves patient health. Current inertia seems more about preserving the status quo than addressing the health impact on individuals like J.D. Meanwhile, our communities suffer as we miss out on J.D.'s contributions to society. The federal proposals provide a crucial moment to discuss opening doors of opportunity rather than defending a system that requires poverty for coverage. It's time to move beyond simply paying insurance companies for a card in J.D.'s pocket and focus on reforms that foster human thriving.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Are Tensions Between Trump and Musk Cooling Down?
00:00 Now, as you say, it's an extraordinary public blowup between them and some very personal things said against each other. But just as quickly, it seems perhaps there are moves already to to patch things up. We can see from Elon Musk's posts in the wee hours, Yes, he's open to doing so, agreeing with people posting on social media. Bill Ackman among them saying, guys, you need to cool this down. You know, Donald Trump saying to Politico, you know, it's going very well in his relationship with musk and politico reporting. In fact, the two men are due to talk on friday. At some point, the White House is arranging that conversation. So that kind of explosive display of anger at each other on social media, trading barbs, perhaps very quickly, followed by an effort to cool things down. And this is kind of a sign of the relationship that they have. We've seen frustrations bubble up before, but there's always been a very careful effort to keep that under wraps behind the scenes. They've disagreed on other things before. Aside from this big tax bill that Donald Trump is trying to get through the Senate in the U.S. It's just that that was a moment where everything burst into the open. The question is, even if they cool things down, you know, is the relationship repaired or is this just a temporary fix? And to that point, Ros, I mean, there was some almost kind of taking bets at the start of this relationship between Trump and Musk as to how long it would last. Some suggesting maybe it's going to be six months, some eight months. So to some extent it's not a surprise that the relationship is breaking down, given that given the nature of both individuals. And yet to see it in that public spotlight was, as you say, remarkable. What does it mean? What are the implications in terms of Trump standing? What does it mean in terms of the Republican Party? What does it mean in terms of in terms of the bill that Trump is so clearly keen to get to get across the line? Well, as you say, some people said it was a matter of time. You've got two very big egos involved here, but it comes at a very delicate time for both of them, arguably, particularly Donald Trump. He's trying everything to get this bill through. He's personally spending hours on the phone lobbying Republicans, saying we've got to get this done. And it faces a very tricky path in the Senate. And if this bill gets amended in any way whatsoever, it has to go back to the House for further review. Said he's wanting to get this done very quickly. He's up against a lot. And for Republicans, there are key questions here of loyalties to Trump or to Musk, because obviously Donald Trump is saying to them, you need to listen to me. But Elon Musk is the one with the money when it comes to, you know, the midterm elections, which are really not that far away. And a lot of his campaign money could help them individually. So how they patch this up or whether they patch this up has a real impact potentially on the bill itself, but also for individual Republicans with one eye very closely, no doubt already on those midterms.
