AN ACT Relating to rights of individuals to bear arms;
SB 5535 declares that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution protect an individual right to bear arms in self-defense and states that laws adopted by the state that create firearms industry member liability or ban a particular type of firearm are unconstitutional, void, and unenforceable. The bill then amends Washington’s firearms statutes to redefine a large number of terms used in the state’s weapons laws, including “assault weapon,” “large capacity magazine,” “firearm,” “dealer,” “manufacture,” “transfer,” “undetectable firearm,” “unfinished frame or receiver,” and related categories such as antique firearms, semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
The bill also repeals several existing provisions in Washington law, including the state’s assault weapons manufacturing/importing/distribution/sale prohibition, consumer protection provisions tied to assault weapons, and the firearms industry public nuisance law. In practical terms, the measure would substantially weaken or eliminate current state restrictions on assault weapons and related firearm components, while also changing how firearms are defined and regulated for purposes of state law enforcement, background checks, sales, imports, and transfers.
If enacted, SB 5535 would significantly alter Washington’s firearms code by invalidating existing state restrictions on certain firearm types and firearm-industry liability theories, while also repealing specific statutes that currently regulate assault weapons and firearms industry conduct. The bill would affect firearm manufacturers, dealers, importers, distributors, sellers, collectors, law enforcement, and private gun owners by changing the legal definitions and removing enforcement authority for several categories of weapons and related parts. It would also affect state background-check and transfer rules insofar as they rely on the amended definitions.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears strongly pro-gun and aimed at expanding firearm rights and limiting state regulation. The bill’s findings language is emphatic and categorical, indicating a clear policy preference for broad constitutional protection of firearm ownership and use. No contrary sentiment is documented in the supplied record, but the scope of the repeal and the constitutional declaration suggest the bill would likely be viewed as highly consequential and politically polarizing.
The main point of contention is the bill’s sweeping treatment of existing Washington firearms restrictions as unconstitutional, including the assault weapons ban and firearms industry public nuisance law. Supporters would likely frame the measure as restoring constitutional rights and limiting overbroad regulation, while opponents would likely object to the elimination of state-level safety and liability tools and to the broad redefinition of assault weapons and related components. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of unfinished frames or receivers, large capacity magazines, and semiautomatic firearms, which are central to current gun-control debates.