In the Legislature: Salomon bill would increase requirements for purchase and transfer of firearms

Jesse Salomon

Sen. Jesse Salomon, a Democrat from Shoreline, and Rep. Liz Berry, a Democrat from Seattle, have introduced bills in each chamber that aim to increase the requirements for the purchase or transfer of firearms in our state.

Salomon represents the 32nd Legislative District, which includes portions of Edmonds and Lynnwood as well as Mountlake Terrace.

“We are tired of the devastating headlines from our communities here in Washington and across the country announcing the death of loved ones due to gun violence,” Salomon said. “There is no one bill that will solve this crisis, but preventing impulse buys by would-be killers, ensuring sufficient time to complete background checks, and requiring safety training to help reduce accidents and suicides are strong steps forward that will save lives.”

The bills, HB 1143 regarding permits, HB 1144 on training, and SB 5232, which encompasses both, require 10-day waiting periods on all gun purchases, as well as proof of firearms training. Firearms purchasers and transferees would be required to provide a firearms dealer with proof of completion of a certified firearms safety training program within the previous five years.

“Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in our country,” Berry said. “As a mom and as a survivor, this is devastating to me. I’m proud to stand with my colleagues to introduce these gun-safety measures that will save lives.”

Legislation would also prohibit a dealer from transferring any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until 10 days after the request for a background check. Additionally, the package of bills requires permits for firearm purchases and applies firearms transfer applications and recordkeeping requirements for all firearms, not just the currently covered pistols and semiautomatic assault rifles.

Other changes include updating firearm transfer and background check processes to conform with the implementation of the state’s firearms background check program.

The 2023 session of the Washington State Legislature began Monday, Jan. 9.

  1. Important legislation to get passed here in Washington, I would hope that more states adopt theses kind of bills to reduce gun violence in our country.

    1. The crime will go on and the guns won’t go away. Getting guns away from the good people will just make crime go up. I know a lot of people that signed up to protect the constitution and know getting rid of the guns will never happen.

      1. Please explain how “preventing impulse buys by would-be killers, ensuring sufficient time to complete background checks, and requiring safety training” is “Getting guns away from the good people.”

        Perhaps you could suggest some ways to limit or reduce the amount of gun-related violence we read about every day? It’s one thing to criticize a law, but to offer no constructive alternative leaves us in the middle of nowhere.

        1. Good questions Nathaniel. What really bothers me somewhat more, is just who defines who “the good people” are? I love the old trope about how the Nazi’s confiscated all the guns. Not true at all; the Nazi’s made sure the “good” people had all the guns so they could murder all the “bad” people and make a “perfect” society. It seems like we could have a society where everyone has the right to keep and bare a fire arm without making some of our children, teachers, minority peoples of all types, and just innocent bystanders pay with their lives almost weekly now. This didn’t seem to be such a problem when I attained my first firearm at age 11.

  2. Maybe we should make decision like this with some before and after data. Both sides of this argument agree on many of the goals so let’s do something like this.
    1. List and agree on some goals. Only agreed upon goals would be considered.
    2. Gather the existing data on how well we are doing on these goals. This may include on things like if someone used a gun for a crime or suicide what are the details of about that gun. Who what where when and how.
    3. With 1 and 2 as a starting point, craft one or more laws that are designed to help achieve the agreed upon goals. And the most important part of this would be these laws would “sunset” at a time certain.
    4. Collect the same data as in 2 and them present the data along with other pros and cons to what happend with the new laws.
    5. And this is the most important part of this, present all this to the voters just before the “sunset” date and let the voters decide on the effectiveness of the laws. A bit of “we the people”. We can do better on decision making.

  3. Jesse and his anti-firearm zealot cohorts in Olympia don’t want to address the “heavy lifting” of dealing with the issue of murder and mayhem committed with “guns”. They don’t want to enforce the multitude of laws already in place because they are “woke” and actually punishing criminals might hurt someone’s feelings. They don’t want to name the main problem which is the breakdown of the nuclear family which has created vastly more young boys with no responsible father figure to guide them. They want to make drugs more available which generates more crime as well as suicidal tendencies. All of this while brainwashing the populace into “feeling” that guns are the problem and if society is disarmed then all will be well . They apparently have no concept of how things have worked out for unarmed populations throughout human history.

    1. Hi Jay, I do not know if my recall is totally accurate but in the case of the 19 yr old U of W student who was on the dean’s list the recommended laws may have changed the outcome of the 3 murders. It looks like we fully enforced all our laws, and the killer was convicted.

      Some of the recommendations are: Better Background Checks, Waiting Period and Proof of Training. If in place the convicted killer would have had to wait a few days for the background check to be completed to get the gun and probably would have had to do more than show that he had read parts of the manual while sitting in his car.

      He likely would have been able to comply with these proposed laws and buy the gun. It would have been much harder to do these murders under these new laws.

      If these laws were passed with a sunset date, we could actually gather the data to see if killing go up or down and also see if any “Good People” are not allowed to buy a gun. Then a vote of the people would be needed to make them permanent.

      1. Hi Darrol,
        I have been around firearms since my teens when I purchased one for hunting deer. That was in the middle 1960’s and there was no “mystique ” surrounding guns and no mass killings. The problem no one wants to address is the cultural decline and the unwillingness to punish criminal activity. Blaming the diminishment of the value of human life on “tools” is weak and ineffective, and unless there is a rebirth of moral clarity and accountability in this nation, nothing will change. Finally, if you feel there has been no degradation of our culture and morals , consider that since RvW 65 million unborn American lives have been snuffed out for the sake of convenience. You may think the two issues are unrelated, but they are not.

        1. Hi Jay, when making a comment about how I might “feel” or “think” you should reread what I have said and see if I expressed any feelings or thoughts about culture and morals and how I look at an issue to cause you to make those statements about me. I do not have the time or energy or data to make any conclusions about “cultural decline or criminal punishment”.

          In my late teens in the late 1950s and early 1960s I do recall my parents and their peers making statements about their thoughts about culture, morals, and punishment. Their comments we very similar to the ones you have made. My peers who are now in their 70s suggested that things change and did not accept that those changes were some form of decline, but simply change.

          The point of the article is to suggest some changes for gun purchase: Better Background Checks, Waiting Periods and Proof of Training. Done correctly they may be able to help and not take away any freedoms. These laws could be written in a way that they would Sunset if the data shows they did not work. Done right, sunsetting would add accountability.

  4. Clinton – The whole narrative of the Nazis seizing all the guns is fairly wobbly. For the most part, in the Weimar Republic – and earlier – there was little general gun ownership in Germany, certainly never even remotely on the same scale is in the US today. Such guns as were in circulation belonged largely to “upper” classes, not the poor or the targeted communities, who had no use for them and no tradition of hunting, etc. – Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. There was in fact, no large, general confiscation program, as vividly imagined by some gun rights activists. Instead, the Nazis made laws banning these communities – and later, occupied countries – from gun ownership. It could be argued that these communities never owned guns in significant numbers in the first place. Nor despite heroic fighting in places like the Warsaw Ghetto, did gun ownership play any role in preventing ultimate defeat in the face of artillery, tanks, and airplanes, or for that matter, in any significant way, in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany.

    For a fuller discussion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument#:~:text=The%20laws%20were%20tightened%20in,of%20arms%20in%20occupied%20countries.

  5. Well I feel like I’ve been well educated here. Wokeness and abortion are the root causes of gun violence. So as soon as we complete abortion bans in all the states and elect only ultra right wing America First candidates, the gun violence problem will be solved. Good to know it’s all that simple and straight forward. I’ll sleep better tonight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.