Washington state residents will face new requirements to purchase or transfer firearms starting May 1, as a new "permit to purchase" law takes effect. The law, known as the "Firearms—Permit to Purchase Application," creates a new process for acquiring a gun and renewing a concealed pistol license.
Kevin Baird, commander of the firearms background division with the Washington State Patrol, said the permit is a mandatory first step.
"This applies to both, like if you were to go to a firearm store, or if you had a firearm that was pawned and you were redeemed. This permit requires a full background check by us, same background check that we do at the time of the transfer of a firearm now," Baird said.
The process involves three distinct requirements: a background check, fingerprint submission through a local law enforcement agency, and certified training.
"We are also required to certify the training provided for both the permit and for a concealed pistol license, so that's the third prong of the permit to purchase. The person has to go and get this training. Once all three prongs are done and the background check is completed, then a permit is issued," Baird said.
Previously, there was no formal oversight for training requirements. House Bill 1163 gives the State Patrol the duty to certify training providers.
"With House Bill 1163, the legislature added to the firearm background division the duty to certify training sent provided to us, so that we can ensure that all of those elements are being met, make sure that the trainers are appropriate, that all of those kinds of things that are written in the law. So that's a pretty significant change," Baird said.
1 Comments
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 18h
I'm a pretty damn adamant firearms rights advocate, and I am perfectly fine with mandatory training, including proof of training by testing. However, that shit needs to be fee free because otherwise it serves as a barrier to lower/no income citizens.
And yes, there's an argument to be made about priorities if a firearm is that major of a purchase. But you don't add barriers that are exclusive in that way. It isn't about whether or not a citizen can afford a gun (particularly since it isn't at all unusual for friends and relatives to provide funds as a gift), it's about placing an undue barrier to part of the population when exercising a right.
Doesn't matter what that right is, whether or not you agree it should be one. What matters is that if we aren't all given equal access under the law, the law is broken.