Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearm Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill letting State Patrol set cost‑based firearm background‑check fees after rejecting targeted exemptions
Summary
After debate and several failed amendment attempts to limit or exempt proposed fee increases, the Appropriations Committee voted to report House Bill 2,521 — which allows the Washington State Patrol to set background‑check fees to cover program costs — out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation.
The House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 30 advanced House Bill 2,521, which would authorize the Washington State Patrol to set the fee for firearm background checks at a level calculated to cover the agency’s total costs of administering the program.
Sydney Jeffrey briefed the committee on the bill and seven proposed amendments in the electronic bill book. Representative Keaton offered an amendment (Jeffs 56) to change the current statutory cap from $18 to $20; sponsors said the change would reduce the additional programmatic revenue estimate from roughly $3.8 million per fiscal year to about $500,000 per fiscal year. Other amendments proposed fee exemptions or waivers for households below 100% of state median income (Jeffs 60), residents living within one mile of certain less‑restrictive placements (Jeffs 58), veterans and active service members (Jeffs 59), victims of domestic violence (Jeffs 57), counties with low per‑capita law enforcement staffing (Jeffs 61), and delaying the effective date until staffing benchmarks are met (Jeffs 62).
Supporters of the bill and fee increase said fees must be sufficient to avoid general‑fund subsidies, staff layoffs and long background‑check delays; opponents raised equity and administrative‑burden concerns, arguing exemptions and attestations would slow processing and create barriers to exercising constitutional rights. Representative Marshall described the bill as giving the State Patrol "a blank check" and warned uncapped fees would create financial barriers for lawful gun owners; Representative Valdez and others urged exemptions for domestic‑violence victims and lower‑income residents.
All seven listed amendments were rejected in committee on voice or recorded votes. The committee then voted to report the bill out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation; the clerk recorded 18 ayes, 12 nays and 1 excused.
Next steps: the bill moves with the committee report to the next legislative stage. Committee debate flagged the need to verify projected programmatic revenue and to monitor administrative impacts if exemptions or attestations are adopted later in the process.
