The Washington State Senate is considering a bill to force citizens to get a mandatory permit to purchase a firearm. Like I have done with some of the other gun control bills in the Legislature this session, I have submitted formal, written testimony to the Senate on this bill.
Senate Bill 5232 establishes a firearm permit requirement to purchase ALL firearms in the State of Washington. The first thing that the bill does is require us to get permission from the Sheriff or Chief of Police of the jurisdiction we live in to purchase a firearm. Any firearm:
The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a (
(pistol)) firearm under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff;
The Sheriff or Chief of Police is required to run Federal, State, and Local background checks and mental health checks. The applicant is required to take a fairly expensive class every 5 years and apply for a permit. That permit has to be acquired BEFORE any possible gun purchase.
Following the break is the written testimony I submitted to the Senate.
As with other “gun control” bills being considered by the legislature, this bill is, on its face, unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court made clear in NYSRPA v. Bruen, as well as the Heller and McDonald cases, all Americans are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. Not only does the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protect this right, but it forbids Congress to infringe it in any way. This clearly includes subjective permitting schemes as was made clear in the Bruen case. And, of course, the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution to the States. So, not only is the Federal Congress forbidden from making laws that infringe on our individual right to keep and bear arms, but so are State Legislatures and their subordinate government organizations.
Text of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Text of Section 1, 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The right to keep and bear arms is on the same level of right and protection as the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, free press, and free practice of religion. You can no more require a permit be issued after mandatory training and classes in order for me to speak freely than you can require a permit after mandatory training and classes in order for me to keep and bear arms.
Since firearms (Arms, to use the Constitution’s terms) are a constitutionally protected right on par with speech, religion, and so on, you can easily determine if your bill is reasonable and constitutional by substituting free speech or religion for firearms. If it sounds wrong, then it is also wrong with regard to firearms. For example, if you were to write a bill requiring mandatory rhetoric and logic training in order to be granted a permit to exercise free speech. We know, obviously, that this would run afoul of the First Amendment. Therefore, the training and permit to purchase firearms is also wrong.
As we see in Oregon right now, such permitting schemes will draw lawsuits, injunctions from state and federal courts, and resistance from the Sheriffs throughout the state that understand what the Constitution. And, more importantly, that they swore an oath to protect and defend the State and Federal Constitutions. As did the Governor and Attorney General and, voluntarily, most of the Senate. Passing a law and implementing it that is clearly unconstitutional is a violation of that sworn oath.
A mandatory permit to purchase a firearm is clearly unconstitutional. This is the crux of the issue. No other arguments matter.
I urge you to vote against this in keeping with the Constitution, your oath, and your duty to protect the rights of all citizens of the great State of Washington.
Eric W. Cowperthwaite
Maple Valley, WA
I highly recommend William Kirk (President of Washington Gun Law) and his very good and insightful videos that explain what’s going on in easy to understand language.
I would start with this one
