As the Democrat-controlled Washington Legislature wrapped up its 2026 session, two bills that anti-gunners supported while gun owners opposed were rammed through and sent to anti-gun Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson to sign, one hiking background check fees and the other a measure essentially designed to silence county sheriffs who publicly oppose gun control laws.
On the plus side, bills which died in committee include legislation which would have restricted possession of firearms in state or local public buildings, parks, playgrounds and county fairs, another measure limiting bulk purchases of firearms and ammunition, and a bill establishing so-called “safe storage” requirements for firearms in vehicles and residences.
However, House Bill 2521 allows the Washington State Patrol (WSP) to adjust its background check fees by setting “an amount reasonably calculated to cover the direct and indirect costs to the Washington state patrol incurred in administering the firearm background check program.”
Critics say the legislation “gives the WSP a blank check to charge whatever they want on a comprehensive background check. Now $18 per transaction will go up to possibly $35 now. This poll tax is a violation of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.”
The new fee bill is scheduled to take effect May 1, 2027, if Ferguson signs it, which is expected.
The other measure isn’t directly related to guns, but it definitely is linked to gun control. House Bill 5974 was supported by the billionaire-backed, Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which openly acknowledged they wanted to rein in county sheriffs who had refused to enforce certain restrictive gun control laws over the past few years. In an unscientific poll of its viewers, Seattle’s KOMO News—the local ABC affiliate—showed a whopping 86 percent of respondents oppose the notion that a state board could be empowered to remove elected sheriffs. Several lawmen testified in opposition
Other gun control bills probably perished because Democrats got into an ugly battle over a far different piece of legislation, the so-called “millionaire income tax,” which Republicans uniformly opposed as a violation of the state constitution.
Lately, however, the state constitution hasn’t seemed to stall Democrats when they were pushing gun control legislation, despite specific language in Article 1, Section 24 which states, “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.”
Grassroots gun rights activists in the Evergreen State consider gun laws already passed in the state to be “impairments,” including bans on so-called “assault rifles” and “large-capacity magazines.” Those bans are being challenged in court, and the magazine ban case has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices have so far not accepted it for review. The case is known as Gators Custom Guns v. Washington. The case has been distributed for conference by the justices at least seven times.
HOWEVER, as offensive as gun laws have become in Washington, there are proposals at the far end of the country that also have gun owners in two states on edge.
In Connecticut, according to WFSB News, lawmakers are considering legislation seeking to ban certain pistols which can allegedly be converted to fire full auto at a rate of “up to 1,200 rounds per minute.” Gov. Ned Lamont supports the proposed ban because some pistols may be altered via a Glock switch (Glock is not named in the legislation), which is already illegal. Opponents, including the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), contend such a ban would only affect honest citizens. By no small coincidence, the president at CCDL is Holly Sullivan, who also serves on the Board of Directors of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is based in Washington state.
House Bill 5043 has already had a public hearing. It discusses “convertible pistols” which are defined in the legislation as “any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with a common household tool into a machine gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter…”
Meanwhile, in neighboring Massachusetts, an arrest in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston got the attention of Jim Wallace, head of the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) because a report on the bust by the Boston police contained a term he had never heard before: “Fully Automatic-Capable Firearm.”
Ammoland contacted the Boston police to ask about this. An officer in public information said he wasn’t sure where this term originated, but that it apparently was how the recovered firearm in the arrest was described that way in an officer’s report.
The gun, a Glock pistol, was fitted with a Glock switch. The suspect was facing multiple charges. Wallace is concerned the term could become the basis for even more legislation similar to that in Connecticut, seeking to ban such handguns because they *might* be converted illegally.
Considering the Connecticut situation, Wallace’s concerns are not without merit.
The common denominator in all three states is that their legislatures and governors’ offices are controlled by the same political party: Democrats.
New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
