Ferguson Signs New Restrictions Despite Republican Opposition
Ferguson signed the legislation after it cleared both chambers of the Washington Legislature. During the signing, he defended the measure, saying the state “must put common-sense reforms in place that save lives.”
Democratic state Rep. Liz Berry, the bill’s sponsor, had spent years pursuing the proposal. Her supporters view the legislation as a public-safety measure, while opponents question whether adding another layer of government approval is necessary when firearm background checks already exist.
The law introduces a separate permit requirement rather than simply modifying the existing point-of-sale process. Under the new system, prospective buyers will need to complete the application requirements before proceeding with a firearm purchase.
That distinction is central to the debate. Opponents are not merely objecting to another background check. They are challenging a system that makes obtaining a state permit an additional prerequisite for exercising a constitutional right.
The $126 Price Tag Comes Before the Other Expenses
The financial burden is likely to become one of the most contentious aspects of the new system.
According to the Washington State Patrol’s official permit-to-purchase information, the initial application will cost $126, consisting of a $90 permit fee and a $36 fingerprint-processing fee. The local law enforcement agency collecting fingerprints may charge an additional fee.
That means the advertised $126 total does not necessarily represent every expense an applicant will encounter.
Radio host Jason Rantz highlighted the additional costs facing prospective buyers, stating: “Course fees, ammunition, range time and travel all come out of the buyer’s pocket on top of the $126.”
Applicants must also provide fingerprints collected by their local law enforcement agency and documentation showing that they completed an approved firearms safety training program within the preceding five years, unless they qualify for an exemption. The permit is valid for five years and must be renewed.
The requirements could create additional obstacles for people who live far from participating agencies or training facilities. Those residents may need to factor in transportation, scheduling and other expenses before completing the application.
For someone who rarely purchases firearms, the new process could represent a significant change from the system they previously encountered.
A Permit Is Not the End of the Process
Obtaining the permit will not eliminate the remaining requirements associated with purchasing a firearm.
The state will continue to conduct the applicable eligibility checks, and buyers must still comply with the rules governing the actual transfer of a firearm. Washington’s new framework also establishes procedures for denying or revoking permits when an applicant or permit holder becomes ineligible.
The Washington State Patrol says the permit requirement will not become mandatory for firearm transfers until May 1, 2027. The agency is preparing the application and training-certification systems ahead of that deadline so residents have time to apply.
These provisions mean the new system is more than a one-time administrative form. It establishes an ongoing permitting framework, complete with eligibility determinations, renewal requirements and the possibility of revocation.
Critics contend that the additional layers of administration will burden lawful buyers. Supporters argue that requiring training and checking eligibility through a standardized process can advance public safety.
Whether the new system achieves its intended goals without placing excessive burdens on eligible residents will remain an important question as implementation approaches.
Gun Rights Advocates Prepare for a Constitutional Battle
Opposition to the law extends beyond the cost of obtaining a permit.
State Sen. Keith Wagoner criticized the proposal during the legislative debate, raising concerns about the role of the Washington State Patrol in implementing a system that the agency will ultimately have to administer.
Pete Serrano, director of the Silent Majority Foundation, has also raised constitutional objections and concerns about the effect of additional requirements on smaller federally licensed firearms dealers.
Serrano has indicated that legal action could follow when the permit mandate takes effect. Any challenge, however, would need to establish that the law violates applicable constitutional protections; opposition alone does not determine the outcome.
The legal question is particularly significant because the Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed the relationship between government regulation and constitutional rights.
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943), the Supreme Court invalidated a municipal licensing tax imposed on people distributing religious literature. The decision recognized that government cannot use a licensing fee to impose an unconstitutional financial barrier on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.
Second Amendment advocates may seek to draw on that principle in challenging firearm-related fees. But the legal analysis is not automatic: courts would need to examine the specific requirements, the constitutional claims and the relevant Second Amendment precedents.
California’s Gun Tax Dispute Offers Another Point of Comparison
Washington’s new permitting system also comes amid broader legal battles over firearm regulation in other states.
In California, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the National Rifle Association have challenged a state excise tax on firearms and ammunition. The organizations argue that the tax unlawfully burdens the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
FPC President Brandon Combs called the tax a “modern Jim Crow law” built to target people the state’s politicians dislike.
NRA official Randy Kozuch said the California tax was “a blatant and egregious attack on the rights of Californians.”
Those statements reflect the organizations’ positions, not a judicial determination that the tax is unconstitutional. The California dispute nevertheless illustrates how gun rights groups are using constitutional litigation to challenge financial burdens associated with firearm ownership.
Washington’s permit fees raise a related question, although the two policies are not identical. One imposes a tax on firearm and ammunition transactions, while the other establishes a permitting process with application and fingerprint-related costs.
The outcome of any challenge to Washington’s law would depend on the specific legal arguments and the courts’ assessment of the evidence and applicable precedents.
The Debate Over Washington’s New Permit System Is Just Beginning
With May 1, 2027, approaching, Washington residents will have to consider how the new process affects their ability to purchase firearms legally.
For Democrats who supported HB 1163, the law represents an effort to expand firearm safety requirements. For opponents, it creates another layer of government administration that could make a constitutional right more expensive and complicated to exercise.
The central dispute is not simply whether applicants should undergo background checks or receive safety training. It is whether the state has designed a permitting system that appropriately balances public safety, administrative costs and constitutional protections.
The $126 initial application charge, fingerprint collection, training requirement and five-year renewal cycle give opponents several specific provisions to examine if they pursue litigation.
For now, the law remains scheduled to take effect in May 2027. Whether it ultimately faces a successful constitutional challenge will depend on the legal proceedings that follow, not merely on the strength of the political arguments on either side.
One thing is clear: Washington’s new permit-to-purchase requirement has placed the balance between firearm regulation and constitutional rights squarely back in the spotlight.
