From Evergreen State to ‘Police State’ as Washington Dems Push Permit to Purchase

Washington State Democrats have moved one step closer to creating what Second Amendment activists see as a “police state” where gun owners and buyers would be forced to obtain a permit-to-purchase before they could actually exercise their rights protected by the federal and state constitutions.

House Bill 1163 was passed out of committee in a strict party line vote, with the next stop being a vote on the House floor, which is controlled by majority Democrats, some of whom have received financial contributions from the gun prohibition lobby. The Center Square is reporting the House Rules Committee would schedule a floor debate.

Among the critics of this legislation is the Sportsmen ‘s Alliance, which said in a message to its members and supporters following the committee vote, “Permit-to-purchase is just another scheme supported by animal extremists and gun-control activists to destroy our rights, values, and lifestyle. Restricting the freedom of peaceable sportsmen will do nothing to solve our public safety problems. Criminals who are the cause of violent crime in the Evergreen State do not purchase their firearms through legal channels.”

When a message about the bill’s passage out of committee was posted on Facebook, one of the first reactions came from former State Rep. Brian Blake, a prominent pro-gun-rights Democrat from Grays Harbor County, who simply observed, “Unbelievable, this cannot really be happening.”

Under HB 1163, would-be gun buyers would have to show proof of taking a state-approved firearms safety course which includes a live-fire exercise before they could buy a gun. The permit would be issued by the Washington State Patrol. The process would include a background check, according to the full text of the 39-page Second Substitute bill. If adopted, the law would take effect Nov. 1, 2026.

Also under Section 9 of this bill, the training requirement would also apply to anyone applying for a concealed pistol license.

But according to the Center Square, Republican State Rep. Matt Marshall of Eatonville “argued that Washington lacks the resources to implement the legislation.”

“Due to the limited staff and scarcity of shooting ranges in our state, this will only exacerbate the backlog and make it nearly impossible for legal gun owners to comply,” Marshall stated. “As elected officials, we’ve sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution; passing legislation that further impedes our constitutionally protected rights is irresponsible.”

Another critic, quoted by the Daily Fly, is Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels, who insisted the legislation “punishes lawful gun owners, not criminals who violate the law.” He described HB 1163 as “a direct threat to citizens of the State of Washington who wish to maintain their right to keep and bear arms.”

In a video interview with KHQ News, Sheriff Nowels stated, “In the last probably five years, it has become fashionable with this legislature to erode away our ability to keep and possess firearms, and…I think it is just an afront to what we as citizens enjoy as God-give rights through our constitution.”

He criticized the fact that the legislation would mandate a fee for the training and fingerprinting process, stating, “I think it shows that the legislature…is fully intent on stripping away as many of our rights in this state as possible.”

Evergreen State Second Amendment activists believe the effort to make compliance difficult is deliberate. With nearly 700,000 active CPLs in the state (according to the state Department of Licensing), Seattle-centric anti-gunners have been eager to place as many roadblocks as possible in the way of gun ownership, and especially licensed concealed carry. Washington is among the states with the oldest carry permit/license structure dating back to the mid-1930s.

There is no requirement in federal law for a purchase permit, and it might even be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, which was incorporated to the states via the 2010 high court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation. Ironically, SAF is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, along with its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

There might also be a challenge under the Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution, which reads, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” Nothing in there about a permit to purchase requirement, either.

If HB 1163 passes the House, as expected, it goes to the state Senate, where Democrats are also in control. If it becomes law, there will undoubtedly be a court battle over the constitutionality of the measure under both the state and federal constitutions.

About Dave Workman