AN ACT Relating to restoration of the right to possess a firearm;
HB 1118 creates a new process for certain people who have lost the right to possess firearms to petition a superior court to have that right restored. The bill specifies which convictions or findings of not guilty by reason of insanity make a person ineligible to petition, including certain serious felonies and specified domestic-violence, stalking, harassment, weapons, animal cruelty, and protection-order violations. It also sets minimum waiting periods before filing, ranging from three to five years depending on the disqualifying offense, and requires that the person have no pending charges and have completed sentencing conditions, with limited exceptions.
The bill lays out the court procedure for restoration petitions, including where the petition must be filed, service on the prosecuting attorney, notice to victims and prior protected parties who request it, review of records by the prosecutor and Washington State Patrol, and the court’s authority to hold a hearing if needed. If the court finds the statutory requirements are met, it must grant the petition. The bill also requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to develop standard forms and update protection-order and no-contact-order forms to allow victims to opt out of notification, and it provides immunity for public officials and agencies acting in good faith under the section.
HB 1118 would amend Washington’s firearms-disability and restoration statutes to add a more detailed, statewide judicial pathway for restoring firearm rights to eligible petitioners. It would affect superior courts, prosecuting attorneys, the Washington State Patrol, the Administrative Office of the Courts, victims who request notice, and people seeking restoration after qualifying convictions or insanity findings. The bill also imposes administrative duties related to standardized forms, record review, and notification procedures, while leaving in place categorical exclusions for certain offenses and other firearm prohibitions.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its text and title. The measure appears generally supportive of restoring rights for people who have completed their sentences and meet defined safety criteria, while preserving restrictions for more serious or violence-related offenses. The structure suggests a policy balance between second chances and public-safety screening.
The main points of contention likely concern which offenses should permanently bar restoration, how long a person should have to wait before petitioning, and how much discretion courts and prosecutors should have in evaluating eligibility. Victim-notification provisions and the requirement that prosecutors review records may also be debated, especially by those concerned about administrative burden or privacy, versus those prioritizing victim participation and public safety. The bill’s exclusion of certain felony sex offenses, domestic violence, stalking, harassment, weapons-related conduct, and protection-order violations indicates a strong public-safety focus that may be central to any debate.