The state of Washington has passed a lot of gun control laws of late, and there's no evidence of them slowing down.

Earlier this week, they passed yet another one.

I know, not exactly shocking in the least. This time, they're following another couple of well-trod plays from the anti-gun playbook that's already in place in several states to some degree or another.

Washington state could see tighter gun laws if Governor Bob Ferguson signs a new bill outlining additional requirements for those hoping to buy a gun. 

House Bill 1163 seeks to make gun laws stricter by requiring a permit from Washington State Patrol to purchase a gun and requiring buyers to complete live-fire training. The bill also establishes guidelines and requires recordkeeping for transferring ownership of firearms. 

Now, so far, permit-to-purchase laws have survived legal challenges. I'm pretty sure Colorado's won't, but that's probably due to the discretionary nature of the law there. Washington state seems to have avoided that particular pitfall.

But there are still questions that no one has managed to answer for me.

For example, why have live-fire training before someone can even buy a gun?

In the text of the bill, it simply says that someone has to show they can handle and fire a weapon safely and proficiently, but I'm left wondering how they're defining proficiency here. All it actually says is that they have to shoot 50 rounds, but in my book, someone buying their first gun is not going to attain any real proficiency in their first 50 rounds of shooting.

And then there's the issue of handling a gun.

If one has to have the training before they can buy the gun, then what gun are they using for training? Different guns have different controls. Learning how to handle one safely can vary from firearm to firearm, and while there's often a significant amount of overlap, there may be enough differences that someone can pass the course easily enough, then be lost when they finally have their gun.

What we have here is a bill that was written by people who are both ignorant and so vehemently anti-gun that they don't want to correct that deficiency. This is meant to simply make it harder for anyone to get a gun in the first place, creating barriers that will keep many from even considering exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Yet they're also trying to make it look like it's just a simple measure designed for safety when it's pretty clear that it does no such thing.

I'd almost respect it more if it weren't trying to put a veneer of respectability on a blatant infringement of people's rights. I can respect honesty, even if I disagree completely with something. As it is, it's just a pathetic effort to trick people into thinking they're making the state safer.

Of course, in that regard, it's no different than pretty much any other gun control law we've ever seen anywhere on the planet. This one is just in Washington state.

This all assumes the governor signs it, though. I don't see him not doing that, unfortunately, but we can hope.