WA lawmakers push to protect gun owners’ personal information

OLYMPIA — A bipartisan bill that would protect personal information submitted to purchase a firearm was approved by the House State Government and Tribal Relations Committee Friday, Jan. 30. The bill has seen bipartisan support as it moves through the legislative process. It subsequently passed to House Rules on Feb. 9.

House Bill 2235, sponsored by Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, would exempt firearm-related records from the Washington Public Records Act, including permits to purchase, firearm transfers, and concealed pistol licenses. The bill aims to address a technical hole in the state’s permit-to-purchase law that did not include public records protections.  

Walsh said the bill would ensure personal information is not released to the general public but remains accessible to law enforcement and authorized agencies. 

“It's about protecting the applicant's privacy in the course of exercising a constitutionally protected right,” Walsh said in a public hearing.  

The legislation would not alter firearm eligibility requirements, background checks, or law enforcement authority.  

Proponents of the bill emphasize that it will safeguard law-abiding gun owners from exposure to bad actors.  

Daniel Mitchell, representing the Washington Civil Association, testified in support, claiming that as the state requires more sensitive information, public discourse could expose individual gun owners to greater risks of harassment or targeting.   

Citizen Justin Whitaker echoed similar sentiments, adding that exposure would not only affect firearm owners but also their families and neighbors, who could be traced through personal data.  

“Protecting this information does not undermine transparency or accountability,” Mitchell said. “In fact, it might save the state money by preventing lawsuits.” 

Rep. Tom Dent also expressed support for the bill. He asserted that the legislation is common sense and that certain transactions should remain private, equating the information to as sensitive as medical records.  

“They don't need to know everything we do,” Dent said in an interview. 

Joe Kunzler, a citizen who testified in opposition, contended that the permitting process impedes the public's right to know and urged for a greater balance between privacy and transparency.  

Kunzler explained that the permitting process should remain accessible for those who routinely utilize public records for legitimate business purposes, such as university research on gun violence and professional media outlets. 

Dent, however, pushed back, arguing that despite businesses operating in good faith, there are other strategies to collect data, such as surveying that do not subject law-abiding gun owners to greater exposure. 

The bill received seven yes votes and no nays during its executive session, passing out of the House State Government and Tribal Committee with a due pass recommendation and was referred to the Rules Committee for further consideration.