Majority Democrats in the Washington Legislature have passed House Bill 2118, dubbed the “FFL Killer Bill,” because it adds onerous and expensive new requirements for licensed firearms dealers in the Evergreen State, which critics suggest are designed to put small gun dealers out of business.
The passage has ignited a bristling discussion on Facebook at the Washington 2024 Legislative Action Group’s page.
Every House Republican, plus Democrat Rep. Mike Chapman, voted against the measure. Every other Democrat voted in favor. The final House vote was 56-39 with two excused. The bill had passed the Senate 28-21. HB 2118 now goes to anti-gun Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who is expected to sign it.
The bill is so overreaching even the Seattle Times editorialized against it, stating the measure “unnecessarily tightens the rein on gun dealers while using the public’s safety as a smoke screen.”
Indeed, the brief title of the bill reads: “Protecting the public from gun violence by establishing additional requirements for the business operations of licensed firearms dealers.”
The original bill was sponsored by what Second Amendment activists have come to recognize as “the usual suspects” because their names habitually appear on other restrictive gun control measures. They are Democrats Liz Berry, Lauren Davis, Beth Doglio, Darya Farivar, David Hackney, Shelley Kloba, Nicole Macri, Timm Ormsby, Strom Peterson, Gerry Pollet, Alex Ramel, Julia Reed, Kristine Reeves, Tana Senn, Amy Walen and Sharon Wylie.
The legislation requires dealers to install a choice of expensive security features, such as bars or grates, screens, metal doors, “security-grade” alarm systems, and it must be “monitored by a remote central station that can contact law enforcement in the event of an alarm.”
The business must be monitored by a digital video surveillance system.
Additionally, the bill says, “Other than during business hours, all firearms shall be secured (i) on the dealer’s business premises in a locked fireproof safe or vault, (ii) in a room or building that meets all requirements of subsection (9)(a) of this section, or (iii) in a secured and locked area under the dealer’s control while the dealer is conducting business at a temporary location.”
From the outset, it was clear to opponents of the legislation that it was designed to put small retailers out of business. In an attempt to stifle such complaints, the bill notes, “Subsections (6) and (9) through (15) of this section shall not apply to dealers with a sales volume of $1,000 or less per month on average over the preceding 12 months. A dealer that previously operated under this threshold and subsequently exceeds it must comply with the requirements of subsections (6) and (9) through 8 (15) of this section within one year of exceeding the threshold.”
One critic weighing in on Facebook put it bluntly: “Well there goes every gun store in the state unless they amended the s— out of it before it passed.” There were not that many successful amendments.
Another frustrated activist observed, “Running gun dealer out of business will protect nothing. It’s high time we organized a march on Olympia and toss these people out in their arses.”
If (or more likely, when) Inslee signs the measure, it will not take effect until July 1, 2025. It will most likely draw one or two legal challenges, perhaps from organized firearms retailers.
When the Seattle Times opposed HB 2118, the editorial stated the bill “pushes gun control to a level of punishment for legitimate businesses.”
“This bill would impose costs on small firearms sellers that could force them out of business and open even wider the black market for gun sales,” the newspaper said.
Large commercially successful firearms dealers opposed the legislation, even though they should likely be able to meet the new requirements because they probably already do. But their defense of smaller retailers, including those who operate their licensed businesses in their homes, underscores a sense of unity in the firearms community.
Early in the current legislative session, Seattle talk show Jason Rantz, writing at MyNorthwest.com, declared, “Washington State Democrats are defining the 2024 legislative session as an all-out war on gun rights. They are not only trying to impose licenses on gun ownership and a per-bullet tax. Now, far-left lawmakers are trying to put gun shops out of business with insurmountable, frivolous costs under the lie that it’s about public safety. What they’re asking for is not possible, and that’s the point.”
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
First off, look at how many of the people representing this bill are women. I am really starting to regret women being able to hold an office and vote. That may have been our biggest mistake ever made in the equality phase of changing America. Let them smoke and drink, let them burn their bra’s but by God, keep them out of politics. The ones against guns and freedom always outweigh the ones that are for and support the 2nd amendment. I am sorry that I feel this way, but know this, I always have supported women in all causes… Read more »
I love FFLs and I am sorry to say it and I know it’s a hardship but they should all leave the state and do the same in similar communist states just like the police in WA and the other commie states should quit and burn their uniforms. AND I HOPE NONE OF THESE FFLS ARE SELLING ANYTHING ( guns, ammo, holsters training)TO THE POLICE THAT THE CITIZENS CAN’T HAVE!!!!!!!!!!……..or at all. WA and the other defund the police and populace states do not deserve to be able to stock up their police departments with the means and tools to… Read more »
Shall not fu***ng be infringed!!!
Here’s my take on this issue, and others… This is a Republic, made up of 50 states; we’ve seen that we can’t expect all of those states to be shining beacons of constitutionality, and patriotism. A state like Washington is home to a great many bicycle seat sniffing Democrats, and progressive liberals that enjoy living among themselves and smelling each others’ farts. At some point, we’ll have to address the reality that the policies of Democrat progressivism is diametrically opposed to Conservative Republicanism, and that having a federal government presiding over both is a bone of contention. As long as… Read more »
How many gun shops were robbed in the past 3 years there? How many murders were committed using guns stolen from FFL’s? Likely very few, and not enough to legitmize these unconstitutional requirements.
This bill lacks substantive due process, and is therefore unconstitutional. We have all heard of procedural due process. The cops have to read us our rights, etc. We are also entitled to substantive due process when legislators try to make a bill become law. That is the bill can not purport to do one thing, but really the legislators want to do something else. For instance: the State of NY passed a bill into law that bakers could not start baking before a certain time in the morning “for safety reasons”. But really the legislators did not want bakers outside… Read more »
Things have to get bad enough for change to occur. When people are victimized constantly and have no avenue for their own defense, things will change. That is unfortunate, but remember, a liberal is just a conservative who has not been robbed yet. Or robbed often enough.
These communities get what they voted for; tyranny at its finest!!! Sure, guns and ammo should have security measures as imposed by the federal government that is reasonable and in effect today. This is scurrilous misconduct on behalf of their state legislators and a massive recall would happen in some states against these so-called usual suspects.
I’m surprised there isn’t a section of the bill allowing the government full access to the surveillance system.
King George and the redcoats would have voted this way. These politicians should receive the same end result…….just for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, of course. One gets, deserves what one allows. If a mob runs over one, should one accept the result because the mob agreed?? Just asking for some old, white guys….Tommy J. et el.