Lawmakers prepare for vote on new gun law proposals

“All this bill does is infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said Julie Barrett, the founder of Conservative Ladies of Washington. “This ‘assault weapons’ ban and the list of firearms it includes would not have any reduction on the gun violence in Washington.” 

Shooting range owner Robin Ball agreed, telling committee members that the proposal is just “a good headline.” 

“I can’t figure out why passing this bill, which punishes people who are not breaking the law and committing crimes, makes sense,” Ball said. “Let’s give law enforcement more support to deal with potential dangers before they happen, not punish people like me, my family, and so many of my friends who shoot for fun and occasionally buy new equipment for the sport that they enjoy.” 

The committee also heard from mothers of shooting victims. The first person to testify spoke about the Route 91 Harvest festival shooting in Las Vegas, where her daughter was killed more than five years ago.  

“58 people died that night,” Ann-Marie Parsons told lawmakers. “The number ultimately went up to 61. More than 850 people were also injured. 10 minutes was all it took to accomplish that with an AR-15 assault weapon. With this weapon you don’t need to be a good marksman to kill or injure over 900 people. No one was targeted that night. They were all mowed down. None of them stood a chance.” 

Lawmakers also heard from Ami Strahan, who lost her 15-year-old son to a school shooting in Spokane in 2017. 

“The shooter had planned on using an assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine that day,” Strahan told the committee. “Fortunately, that gun did jam, forcing him to use a pistol instead. My son tried to stop him and he was shot twice...it was late start and all of the children were getting ready for class. Imagine what would have happened if his assault rifle did not jam.” 

The proposed ban comes one year after Washington banned “high capacity” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Advocates for the new proposal say that it would not infringe Americans’ constitutional rights because, like the magazine ban, it limits the type of weapon available, without banning guns entirely. 

A second proposal before the state legislature is even more controversial. HB 1143 would require Washingtonians to obtain a permit before buying a gun.  

Similar to a recent voter-approved law in Oregon, the proposal would require safety training and would give more time to complete a background check. Advocates say making it more difficult to buy a gun could prevent people from harming themselves or others. 

While advocates say the proposal is intended to make that guns are kept out of the hands of people who cannot legally possess them, opponents raised concerns about infringing on Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights. 

“Comparisons have been made...to a fishing license or a driver’s license,” pointed out Rep. Jim Walsh (R-19th District), “which of course are not specifically [protected] under the state constitution or federal constitution. Voting is specifically protected under the state constitution and the federal constitution. Would it be - the logic of this bill suggests that we can require training and a permit to exercise the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms. Following the logic of these bills, would it be reasonable to request training and a permit to vote?”  

“We’re in a place where what we think of as constitutionally protected activity has far outstripped the vision of our founding fathers,” responded Rep. Amy Walen (D-48th District) “And it is reasonable in this day and age to regulate dangerous objects. And so we have to balance right with responsibilities. 

“I do think we need to regulate voting as well,” she added, “and balance rights and responsibilities there too.” 

Both proposals are scheduled for a vote in the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee on January 27th.