Spin Control: Bill to ban weapons in more public areas moves on without most of the many amendments suggested

The latest skirmish in the state’s battle to protect people from gun violence – or to trample on everyone’s God-given Second Amendment rights, if you prefer – was fought this month over a proposal to ban weapons from parks, playgrounds, county fairs and government buildings.

The bill passed the Senate at the beginning of the month on a mostly partisan vote, with two Democrats joining all Republicans in the “no” column.

In mid-March, the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee held a well-attended, 40-minute hearing featuring many of the usual arguments for and against any restrictions on firearms. Supporters of the restriction said people need more protection from random gun violence, which claims hundreds in Washington each year, and children and families should feel safe in public spaces. The opposition countered with the fact that mass shootings often occur in places where guns are already banned, and expanding the ban would disarm law-abiding citizens while inviting criminals to those newly restricted places.

And yes, the claim was made that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because it wouldn’t really be a hearing on gun legislation without that.

Last week, as the committee was deciding whether to push the bill along the long legislative process, Republicans on the panel tried – and mostly failed – to make changes by offering 17 amendments.

Various amendments tried to narrow the ban by not applying in community parks. Or swimming beaches. Or performing arts centers. Or county fairs. Or public government buildings.

All failed.

Another would have exempted “frontier” counties from the ban, although it should be noted that the designation belongs not to places where tall dark strangers in 10-gallon hats ride into town, tie up their horses to a hitching post and saunter into a bar for three fingers of red-eye. It’s basically a population density term, so it’s counties with 50 people or fewer per square mile. That’s 23 of the state’s 39 counties, including all that border Spokane County.

That failed, as well as a proposal to exempt any county with a crime rate less than the state average. One problem with that, not specifically addressed in the amendment, is that the annual report by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs lists different crime rates for different levels of crime. The rate in 2023 for violent crime is 14 per 1,000 persons, while the rate for the combination of violent, property and other categories is 62 per 1,000.

And if good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, shouldn’t the ban apply in places where crime is lower while exempting counties where it’s higher because they have more bad guys?

There was an amendment to let first-time offenders off with a warning rather than hitting them with a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail or a $5,000 fine. Or let them off if there was no sign that warned people weapons aren’t allowed in a particular place. Or restrict the ban only to persons convicted of a serious felony or members of a street gang.

All failed.

Another amendment would have taken “firearms” out of the definition of weapons, leaving in other weapons like knives, daggers, dirks, clubs and slingshots. Another would have left in firearms but removed knives, daggers and dirks. Not sure how long it has been since someone in Washington has been attacked with a dirk, but those amendments also failed.

Another amendment would have canceled the bill if it passes, but there’s no money in the operating budget to cover the costs. The estimated cost of the change is about $60,000, according to the Legislature’s fiscal analysis, primarily for making signs and putting them up in the appropriate places.

It’s a tough budget year, but in a $75 billion budget, $60,000 might not be too hard to find. That amendment went down, too.

The committee did approve one amendment proposed by Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, which was to specifically exempt from the ban any firing range used for law enforcement training. Seems like a sensible thing.

The Civil Rights and Justice Committee sent the bill to the Appropriations Committee, which has until April 8 to decide whether to send it to the full House for another vote. And likely more attempts at amendments.