A Washington State anti-gun group is taking shots at lawful gun owners with both barrels, proposing seven new restrictions in the upcoming legislative session, including requiring a state permit for firearm purchasers, banning firearms in so-called “sensitive places” and levying an additional excise tax on the purchase of guns and ammunition.

According to a report at washingtonstatestandard.com, the Alliance For Gun Responsibility recently published its wish list for the upcoming legislative session. And the organization’s agenda for the 2025 legislative session reads like a gun-banner’s dream.

Proposals range from requiring a permit to purchase firearms to setting stricter standards for already highly regulated gun dealers and restricting firearms in so-called “sensitive places” to include parks and public buildings, as well as allowing municipalities to set their own carry laws. Other proposals include a so-called “safe storage” requirement by which the government would dictate how citizens handle their own private property and restrict what the group calls “bulk firearms and ammunition purchases.”

The most egregious, however, is the proposed excise tax—a scheme that started in California and has leaked over into other newly liberal-leaning states that have become largely anti-gun.

“Gun violence costs Washington state an average of $11.8 billion every year, ranging from direct medical costs and criminal justice services to a lost quality of life for victims and their families after a tragedy,” the policy agenda states. “Washington must raise revenue to support victims and service programs via an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition.”

The frustrating thing is lawful citizens who purchase firearms through legal means (criminals generally steal or get theirs on the street) don’t use their firearms to commit criminal violence that costs so much money. Consequently, having them fund programs necessary because of criminals is not only unjust, but it’s illogical.

Like the recent ballot initiative passed in Colorado that puts a new 6.5% tax on guns, ammo and related accessories, this Washington proposal is nothing more than what some would call a “sin tax,” akin to that placed on items like tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. However, in this case, the only supposed “sin” being committed by Washington gun purchasers is practicing their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.

Firearms and ammunition are already subject to an 11% federal excise tax through the Pittman-Robertson Act—of which the bulk goes to state wildlife agencies for conservation projects—along with a variety of other state and local taxes and fees. To date, California and Colorado are the only other states to have enacted a similar tax scheme.

Washington State lawmakers who might be considering such a proposal in the upcoming legislative session would do well to acknowledge the pushback in the states that have instituted such a tax. The Colorado law passed just last month, and Second Amendment organizations are already preparing litigation on the matter.

Meanwhile, in California, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) have filed a lawsuit on behalf of two individuals in the Golden State who were forced to pay the extra tax in an effort to get that state’s law struck down by the courts.

In the lawsuit, titled Jaymes v. Maduros, plaintiffs argue that the tax unconstitutionally targets gun owners for political purposes.

“Here, California effectively seeks the power to destroy the exercise of a constitutional right by singling it out for special taxation,” the complaint reads. “If this tax is permitted, there is nothing stopping California from imposing a 50% or even 100% tax on a constitutional right it disfavors—whether it be the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free exercise of religion or any other right.”