Washington HB 2118 (2023/2024) - Additional requirements for the business operations of licensed firearms dealers

[Sporting Systems]

Just curious, are any of these agencies aware that you will disappear and be unavailable as a resource to them? If so, are any of them lobbying the legislature to stop this?

Some are aware, most may have a hint of it. We're working with the Sheriffs and Police Chief's Association to get a collective position of support.

 

[44Brent]

Seems to me that regulating ffls out of existence is infringement of right to keep arms for individual citizens. There woudl be no reasonable way for civilians to acquire arms.

Like I may have said earlier unfortunately playing defense against WA D politicians is like high school JV football playing against an nfl offense. But fortunately the referees (scotus) controls the game when someone breaks the rules, which WA is doing. Long and expensive, but courts are the only way imo.

Sure would be nice if there could be damages paid by the state to ffls state-wide which are so devastating that they would never try such a thing again. Scotus might support that, for that reason, maybe. ? It has to be so painful that they would never try something like this again. Current damages, futures income damages, and loss to reputation and business in very long term damages. Think in terms of largest payout in us history. And build in a percentage of those damages paid to be set aside in a fund for future court battles for 2A defense against WA state gov. That's what I would do anyway.

All the way back from 2009 I was operating under the assumption that eventually a complete ban on the sales of firearms and ammunition would be implemented. So, every month I would visit Cabelas, look at the piles of ammunition, and say to myself "ammunition and firearms are plentiful now, but it will someday be completely unavailable". Since I was operating under that assumption, I acted on my beliefs. Now I'm at the point of saying "whatever you have now, is what you will ever have for the rest of your life". There may be a short window, but that window appears to be closing. It may never open again. Followers of court cases can see that the 9th circuit court of appeals is rigging pro-2nd amendment cases to ensure that nothing slows down the states, and that nothing ever reaches the Supreme Court. I would not count on the courts to save us.

If I were to offer an opinion to gun owners in Washington State (or non-gun owners it would be this). The window is closing -- whatever you have NOW is all you will ever have.

 

[cervelorod]

All through history, governments have made opposing them illegal, and subversives have found ways to circumvent those laws. At some point we will be those subversives doing what we have to to keep the hope alive. There are more of us than there are of them, and God willing, the pendulum will swing back towards the opposite end of the spectrum.

This particular piece of garbage is hard to stomach, and if it passes, I don't know how it is fought to undo it. It does seem that to many Washingtonians are dumber than a box of rocks and can't see that crime has increased massively as the goobers in power have curtailed gun rights.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I wonder what would happen if the WA gov banned churches, or newspapers and the internet and other businesses that allow freedom of speech? I don't think it would go over too well. This is infringing a right guaranteed by the constitution. I would sue the piss out of them and demand catastrophic damages on behalf of all affected gun related businesses statewide and maybe all the citizens who would lose their right to obtain firearms.

 

[NMCB 133]

Some are aware, most may have a hint of it. We're working with the Sheriffs and Police Chief's Association to get a collective position of support.

I often wonder the stance of many of them. Any time I'm in earshot of an LEO, I ask what their thought's are on a lot of this in a bundled question
Sadly, 99.9% insist they're not allowed to discuss such politics, or any for that matter I suspect.
Ii know full well it''ll be business as usual when asking, but still enjoy the reactions.

 

[ATCclears]

HB 2118 continues to move forward.

 

[NMCB 133]

Pretty much everyone will close. The cost of compliance, for our shop is approaching $700,000 PLUS moving to a new space that is nearly double the size so we can install the data center for video storage and about 70 giant fire safes for firearms and 4473s.

Any chance a bunch can group together, in a partnership of sorts to circumvent this horse sh!t, at all?
Obviously it'd drastically reduce the amount of stores statewide, but something better than nothing
Maybe if could have 4 stores strategically located in the center of each 4x4 section of the state.
2 on east side of the mountains & 2 over here.
I'd even start a gofundme/us to tell em fukyew!
Name the store "Regulator's"

I'd even volunteer for security details if it was required in this new felonious infringement.

 

[44Brent]

Any chance a bunch can group together, in a partnership of sorts to circumvent this horse sh!t, at all?
Obviously it'd drastically reduce the amount of stores statewide, but something better than nothing
Maybe if could have 4 stores strategically located in the center of each 4x4 section of the state.
2 on east side of the mountains & 2 over here.
I'd even start a gofundme/us to tell em fukyew!
Name the store "Regulator's"

I'd even volunteer for security details if it was required in this new felonious infringement.

Consider another alternative vision of the future - one in which 100% of the FFLS in Washington completely shut down. Would it be a pure un-mitigated disaster? Or, would there be an opportunity for a Phoenix to rise from the ashes?

On the downside there is this:

1. Business owners would be financially ruined and simply driven out of business.
2. No one would be able to purchase a new firearm in Washington via any legal means.
3. No one in Washington would be able to sell a used firearm in Washington via any legal means, due to the laws that require all transfers go through a FFL.

But this would open up a unique and historic opportunity to completely gut and invalidate the federal laws regarding FFL requirements and restrictions on out-of-state gun sales. Why would this be an opportunity? Consider the following -

1. Citizens of Washington would have no legal means to acquire any firearms - new or used within the state.
2. Citizens of Washington would have no legal means to acquire any firearms from out of state FFLs, because there is no one within Washington available to process the transfer.
3. Citizens of Washington are now denied any legal means of acquiring firearms due to the combination of the new state level attack and the pre-existing federal level attack.

SAF and other organizations now have a case they can pursue to attack the federal laws and completely decimate them. How would this work? A Washington resident would attempt to purchase a firearm in a state like Texas. The purchase would be denied. Now the plaintiffs can file a lawsuit in a federal court in the 5th Circuit court which is highly favorable to the 2nd Amendment.

Watch the howling and screaming begin as gun prohibitionists realize that in screwing over gun owners in Washington State, they put their framework of federal laws in jeopardy. In order for this to work there could not be a single FFL open in Washington State. They all have to be shut down. Otherwise, the state would present a defense that there exists some method by which someone could purchase a firearm in Washington State. I'm guessing that if Washington State Democrats saw this one coming, they would not be pushing to pass this bill.

In summary, I think that FFLs in Washington State are going to be in a position to take one for the team, even though they will personally devastated in the short term of the next year or two.

 

[NMCB 133]

Yeah, it just disgusting thinking of the financial impact it'll have on so many FFL's.
Just brainstorming rather than being angry. Hopefully the latter happens

 

[44Brent]

Yeah, it just disgusting thinking of the financial impact it'll have on so many FFL's.
Just brainstorming rather than being angry. Hopefully the latter happens

I just forwarded this thread to a prominent attorney that you would recognize within the 2nd Amendment sphere. I'm curious to see what he thinks about some of the ideas I and others presented. Particularly mine, about a potential legal attack on the entire framework of federal laws that control sales across state lines by FFLs.

 

[NMCB 133]

 

[ATCclears]

HB 2118 passed in the House, advances to the Senate. A Roll Call of how they voted is below.

 

[NMCB 133]

 

[cervelorod]

Consider another alternative vision of the future - one in which 100% of the FFLS in Washington completely shut down. Would it be a pure un-mitigated disaster? Or, would there be an opportunity for a Phoenix to rise from the ashes?

On the downside there is this:

1. Business owners would be financially ruined and simply driven out of business.
2. No one would be able to purchase a new firearm in Washington via any legal means.
3. No one in Washington would be able to sell a used firearm in Washington via any legal means, due to the laws that require all transfers go through a FFL.

But this would open up a unique and historic opportunity to completely gut and invalidate the federal laws regarding FFL requirements and restrictions on out-of-state gun sales. Why would this be an opportunity? Consider the following -

1. Citizens of Washington would have no legal means to acquire any firearms - new or used within the state.
2. Citizens of Washington would have no legal means to acquire any firearms from out of state FFLs, because there is no one within Washington available to process the transfer.
3. Citizens of Washington are now denied any legal means of acquiring firearms due to the combination of the new state level attack and the pre-existing federal level attack.

SAF and other organizations now have a case they can pursue to attack the federal laws and completely decimate them. How would this work? A Washington resident would attempt to purchase a firearm in a state like Texas. The purchase would be denied. Now the plaintiffs can file a lawsuit in a federal court in the 5th Circuit court which is highly favorable to the 2nd Amendment.

Watch the howling and screaming begin as gun prohibitionists realize that in screwing over gun owners in Washington State, they put their framework of federal laws in jeopardy. In order for this to work there could not be a single FFL open in Washington State. They all have to be shut down. Otherwise, the state would present a defense that there exists some method by which someone could purchase a firearm in Washington State. I'm guessing that if Washington State Democrats saw this one coming, they would not be pushing to pass this bill.

In summary, I think that FFLs in Washington State are going to be in a position to take one for the team, even though they will personally devastated in the short term of the next year or two.

Love the bigger picture strategy, my concern would be that one place, XYZ guns ( hypothetical ) for example. Now everyone is the state has to come to them and the numbers work out, while being in compliance with this bullbubblegum, license to purchase, 1 firearm transfer a month, 10 day waiting period. We all get to travel, 3-4 times to procure or transfer a gun. I feel that non-compliance will be the benefactor here.

 

[44Brent]

Love the bigger picture strategy, my concern would be that one place, XYZ guns ( hypothetical ) for example. Now everyone is the state has to come to them and the numbers work out, while being in compliance with this bullbubblegum, license to purchase, 1 firearm transfer a month, 10 day waiting period. We all get to travel, 3-4 times to procure or transfer a gun. I feel that non-compliance will be the benefactor here.

This is a scenario in which obviously a person can unintentionally screw everything up by by offering a method of compliance. I remember previously pointing out that a person could save Democrats on a previous assault weapon registration scheme, by providing training to comply with semi-auto purchasing requirements. One of this forum's esteemed members promptly stepped up to offer free training at his own personal cost so that everyone could easily comply with the Democrat's training requirements scheme. Is there a person on this go around who will step up to save the Democrats once again? Probably, but I don't know. Few people will make a decision based on strategic thinking. Everyone will count the cost and put their own financial interest first to see if they can get their revenues and expenses to balance out, and then try to determine if it is in their own short term interest.

 

[cervelorod]

This is a scenario in which obviously a "hero" can screw everything up by saving the Democrat's butt by offering a method of compliance. I remember previously pointing out that a hero could save Democrats on a previous assault weapon registration scheme, by providing training to comply with semi-auto purchasing requirements. One of this forum's esteemed members promptly stepped up to offer free training at his own personal cost so that everyone could easily comply with the Democrat's training requirements scheme. Is there a hero on this go around who will step up to save the Democrats once again? Probably, but I don't know. Few people will make a decision based on strategic thinking. Everyone will count the cost and put their own financial interest first to see if they can get their revenues and expenses to balance out, and then try to determine if it is in their own short term interest.

I chose willful non- compliance on those fronts so far. Haven't bought a new firearm, only NFA items for existing guns. I do have some projects I will spend more time working on while the bubblegum works through. I may need to spend more time at work, to pay taxes for sideshow Bob to enforce these and donate to groups fighting him. If only the wife could see the issues in this state so we could move….

 

[GWS]

Consider another alternative vision of the future - one in which 100% of the FFLS in Washington completely shut down. Would it be a pure un-mitigated disaster? Or, would there be an opportunity for a Phoenix to rise from the ashes?

On the downside there is this:

1. Business owners would be financially ruined and simply driven out of business.
2. No one would be able to purchase a new firearm in Washington via any legal means.
3. No one in Washington would be able to sell a used firearm in Washington via any legal means, due to the laws that require all transfers go through a FFL.

But this would open up a unique and historic opportunity to completely gut and invalidate the federal laws regarding FFL requirements and restrictions on out-of-state gun sales. Why would this be an opportunity? Consider the following -

1. Citizens of Washington would have no legal means to acquire any firearms - new or used within the state.
2. Citizens of Washington would have no legal means to acquire any firearms from out of state FFLs, because there is no one within Washington available to process the transfer.
3. Citizens of Washington are now denied any legal means of acquiring firearms due to the combination of the new state level attack and the pre-existing federal level attack.

SAF and other organizations now have a case they can pursue to attack the federal laws and completely decimate them. How would this work? A Washington resident would attempt to purchase a firearm in a state like Texas. The purchase would be denied. Now the plaintiffs can file a lawsuit in a federal court in the 5th Circuit court which is highly favorable to the 2nd Amendment.

Watch the howling and screaming begin as gun prohibitionists realize that in screwing over gun owners in Washington State, they put their framework of federal laws in jeopardy. In order for this to work there could not be a single FFL open in Washington State. They all have to be shut down. Otherwise, the state would present a defense that there exists some method by which someone could purchase a firearm in Washington State. I'm guessing that if Washington State Democrats saw this one coming, they would not be pushing to pass this bill.

In summary, I think that FFLs in Washington State are going to be in a position to take one for the team, even though they will personally devastated in the short term of the next year or two.

It's really easy to suggest taking one for the team when you're not the one taking it, isn't it?
Next year or two?
How fast do you think we could get all these laws overturned?
Let's see... Rhode v Bonta (Ammo purchase restrictions) is in its 6th year
Duncan v Bonta ("Hi cap mag ban) This latest case against the mag ban is around 7 years old
Miller v Bonta (Assault weapon ban) is around 5 years old
And Duncan and Miller are just the newest cases against SB 23 (AW & Mag bans) which was enacted back on 1/1/2000 These fights have been going on for over 2 decades.
How long are you willing to go without the ability to buy a gun? How badly damaged will the gun culture in Washington be even if we got this law tossed in only a year or 2.
And remember All the appeals have to go through the 9th Circuit.

This is a scenario in which obviously a "hero" can screw everything up by saving the Democrat's butt by offering a method of compliance. I remember previously pointing out that a hero could save Democrats on a previous assault weapon registration scheme, by providing training to comply with semi-auto purchasing requirements. One of this forum's esteemed members promptly stepped up to offer free training at his own personal cost so that everyone could easily comply with the Democrat's training requirements scheme. Is there a hero on this go around who will step up to save the Democrats once again? Probably, but I don't know. Few people will make a decision based on strategic thinking. Everyone will count the cost and put their own financial interest first to see if they can get their revenues and expenses to balance out, and then try to determine if it is in their own short term interest.

Save the Democrats? How on earth do you think it saves the Democrats? Do you you really believe Inslee and Ferguson were saying "Whew, we sure dodged a bullet when Dan made that class for free!"?
Do you think the training requirement would have gone away if the hero you're scorning had not offered the free training? Do you believe that if everyone had to pay for 1639 training a judge would have immediately stopped it with an injunction? And if that actually happened, do you think, the state wouldn't immediately appeal to the 9th?
In California, back in 2010, a gun shop found a way around California's "Unsafe Guns" law that made a roster of "Safe" guns (i.e. guns whose makers paid the state's fees (grift) for safety testing) They got a manufacturing license and converted every non-roster pistol they brought in to single shot pistols which were exempt from that law. As there no law banning private citizens from converting single shot pistols to semi-auto... Other shops got into the game and estimates are 1 million plus non-roster guns came into the state. There was also no law preventing the private party transfer of these non roster pistols. The state of California did not view this as someone saving their butts. The state of Washington will not be grateful if the FFL's figure a way around 2118.

You don't seem to appreciate that these people are fighting for their livelihoods as well as for OUR Second Amendment rights and if they come up with a way around this latest assault against our rights it isn't to save the Democrats. It's to save our rights to continue to purchase guns. AND, of course, it will save the businesses that they've put their lives into. Personally, I hope that the FFL's can come up with a way around this law because I'm not willing to wait 1, 2 or 10 or 20 years for your experiment to reach fruition. IF it ever actually does reach a successful conclusion. The cost is too high both in rights delayed and in dollars spent. How much do you think these new cases will cost to litigate? I know where the state will get the bucks to fight us, but where do we find yet more money for new cases? FFLs have been fighting anti-gun cases for years. Their resources are finite. My resources to donate to fight these laws are finite. I imagine that's true for nearly every pro-gun person in Washington and/or the United States. OTOH, the state's resources are limitless. So NO! don't fold up shop for the sake of the team. The FFL's that can stay open will be far more torment to the anti-gunners than they will ever be saviors. And as long as they stay open, every gun they sell will be a cause of indigestion for the libtards who want to swallow them up.

 

[WEE]

If all of the firearm stores shut down, then I would anticipate that those stores that also have an indoor range as part of their business that those ranges would be gone, too. A couple of the indoor ranges I go to provide reserved times for LEO training. Where would they then go? And would the next bill be to shut down any remaining indoor ranges and the outdoor ranges, too?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

...And would the next bill be to shut down any remaining indoor ranges and the outdoor ranges, too?

Yes a continuous attack on anything and anyone to do with guns is what I would expect personally. It gives them votes and keeps them in power.

 

[DB is Here]

With 6 initiatives being offered by Lets go Wa, this may be another one worthy of providing an initiative for.

You'd think with over 2.6 million signatures on those 6 initiatives they'd get the hint we're done being rolled over by these crazy laws being enacted.

https://letsgowashington.com/