Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayors and law enforcement back bill to reclassify unlawful firearm possession as violent offense; defenders warn of disproportionate penalties
Summary
House Bill 1139 would reclassify unlawful possession of a firearm as a violent crime, require jail booking on UPF charges and raise seriousness levels and penalties. Testimony included mayoral and law-enforcement support citing prosecutorial gaps; criminal-defense groups warned mandatory arrest and increased multipliers would be disproportionate,
House Bill 1139 drew competing testimony over whether unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF) should be reclassified as a violent offense, whether police should be required to book people on probable cause for UPF, and whether increasing sentencing multipliers and seriousness levels is proportionate.
Brett Gailey, mayor of Lake Stevens and a former law-enforcement officer, framed the bill as a response to violent incidents involving illegally possessed guns: "Unlawful possession of firearms is not treated with the serious seriousness it deserves," he said, describing a Lake Stevens review showing "40 arrests for UPF and only 1 prosecution" between February 2016 and February 2023. Gailey said HB 1139 would (1) reclassify UPF first degree as a violent offense so prosecutors prioritize gun-crime enforcement, (2) mandate jail booking for anyone charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, and (3) enhance sentencing ranges to deter repeat offenders.
Law-enforcement groups spoke in support. Anne Anderson of the Washington State Narcotics Investigators Association said UPF is often treated like a property offense and that reclassification and mandatory arrest would improve community and officer safety. James McMahon of the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs told the committee his membership largely supported the bill’s aims; some members welcomed mandatory booking because local jails currently refuse many lower-level bookings, while others worried the proposal represented broader firearm policy adjustments they do not endorse.
Several witnesses urged the committee to consider downstream consequences. McMahon asked the committee to ensure Department of Corrections supervision and screening mechanisms are aligned with any change so supervision is not unintentionally reduced.
Opponents included the Washington Defender Association and criminal-defense groups. Ramona Brandes, representing the Washington Defender Association and the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the current law already leads to many prosecutions for firearm use in crimes and described four core objections: mandatory arrest on probable cause broadens custody without sufficient criteria; seriousness-level multipliers have historically been used for actual violent acts and not for possessory offenses; proposed multipliers risk disproportionate long-term effects on juveniles and communities of color; and the Sentencing Guidelines Commission staff opposed the proposed seriousness-level elevations. "This elevation would place unlawful possession of a firearm first degree higher than drive-by shooting," Brandes said, and she argued the proposal is "entirely disproportionate."
Testimony also included voices of lawful-gun-rights advocates who supported the bill’s focus on illegal possession. Theo Morca, who identified himself as an "avid lawful gun owner" from District 46, told the committee HB 1139 targets criminal misuse and not law-abiding owners.
The committee heard practical questions from members. Representative Griffey asked whether officers who do not book suspects nevertheless confiscate firearms; witnesses answered that departments generally seize firearms when a person is arrested even if the person is later released. Several witnesses noted the bill’s mandatory-arrest language could sweep in people who temporarily possessed a firearm without evidence of an imminent risk, and defenders warned mandatory arrest provisions could create long-term collateral consequences for young people and others whose loss of firearm rights may stem from nonviolent or juvenile adjudications.
Ramona Brandes said convictions for unlawful possession are already common: she cited more than 850 convictions in 2024 for firearm-related offenses, and argued elevating UPF via multipliers and seriousness levels without the Sentencing Guidelines Commission's input would be inappropriate.
Committee members did not take a final vote in the hearing. Members signaled the measure will be reviewed as part of the committee’s ongoing bill work and that they will consider technical amendments and input from the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and other stakeholders.
No formal committee vote or floor action on HB 1139 was recorded during the hearing.
