[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6125054,"mediaKeyId","2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a","parentId",2678687,"title","Committee hears broad bill to restrict weapons at parks, public buildings and county fairs; advocates split","audioSeconds",2391,"startMs",4447290,"endMs",6838949,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a&start=4447&end=6838","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a/thumbnail_4447290.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125054/Washington/Committee-hears-broad-bill-to-restrict-weapons-at-parks-public-buildings-and-county-fairs-advocates-split","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125054-315133fed403ac07262b3bdc3c7f6780/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145151&Signature=Jnsu8IbUHI8fNwa4UlXNwJYlqCswEUPyyEhhn3uFeNjtOZlild3dQx2dh2vzv4mXs7QsdvPuPVadJ2u0oHxgXFzG3ioRm4AdYKs6svbgPTOis62RwjC8XiR-nPPWMHMIBzxIKs5vaeP7efhxWzzWZY8IP~jBDpwAxH5xka9SDYiUffUP5UK1V4EQPKZYpnp~P9MEMxPC-ejlO-ipB0PW61p-W-cmtC7ZnUn0G17V-aVFIFv~wIbTQ9sKbuUxtZHm1Ibn272LHGfgUx4UtOEF7zUF~ASdAjTfsHxL7BF75-KuOxbZ4aBG~cITiItMYQ1c-26NJapof0g3t69-a-M~kA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Civil Rights & Judiciary","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee considered engrossed second substitute Senate Bill 5,098, a proposal to prohibit entry with weapons into specified public places — including park facilities likely to be used by children, state and local public buildings, and county fairgrounds when open to the public.

John Brzezinski, staff to the committee, said park facilities covered by the prohibition would include playgrounds, sports fields, swim beaches and teen or community centers; local governments would be required to designate and post the perimeter of restricted areas. The bill would not apply to Washington State Department of Transportation properties used primarily by the traveling public, but would require firearms in such areas to remain locked in cases or in locked portions of vehicles. Brzezinski said the bill exempts qualifying law enforcement, military personnel, concealed‑carry licensees and other enumerated categories and would not apply to gun shows on county fairgrounds.

Sen. Javier Valdez, sponsor, described the proposal as an expansion of last year’s restrictions and cited a shooting at a county fair as impetus to extend prohibitions to fairgrounds and additional public buildings. “Wherever children are likely to be,” Valdez said, “is a North Star” for the policy.

Testimony split along predictable lines. Parents, educators, pediatricians, survivors and student speakers urged passage. Margaret Heldring of Grandmothers Against Gun Violence, a Portland mother and a pediatrician from Seattle Children’s cited increased risks and long‑term harm from firearm exposure. A number of students gave emotional testimony about feeling unsafe at school and in parks.

Local elected officials and school‑district representatives supported the bill’s public‑safety aims but asked for clarity and funding to implement posting requirements. Brian Buck of the Lake Washington School District said the 10‑year school‑planning timelines and multiple failed bond measures in his district illustrated the need for operational exceptions if property‑use timelines interact with the restricted‑area obligations.

Opponents included gun‑rights organizations, self‑defense instructors and some private citizens. Aveen Klein of the NRA urged the committee to oppose the bill, arguing empirical claims about gun‑free zones are flawed and that prohibitions would disarm law‑abiding citizens. The Washington State Association of Counties cautioned about implementation costs for signage and ordinance drafting and asked for state reimbursement or an appropriation. Public testimony included sharply divergent accounts from survivors of gun violence who said the bill would protect families and from individuals who said disarming lawful citizens would increase vulnerability.

Committee members asked detailed technical questions about weapon definitions and how specific knives would be treated under the unified definition proposed in the bill. Staff said the bill consolidates two current statutory definitions into a single definition that could cover items not listed explicitly if they fit the text.

Why it matters: The bill would expand areas where weapons are prohibited in public spaces across Washington and raises questions about implementation costs, signage, local‑ordinance work and constitutional challenges flagged by opponents.

What’s next: The hearing recorded extensive public comment both for and against the bill; staff and the sponsor will consider technical clarifications and follow‑up questions; no committee vote was taken at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Civil Rights & Judiciary - 3/18/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee considered a bill to prohibit weapons in park facilities likely to be used by children, state and local public buildings, and county fairgrounds when open to the public.","taxTitle","Civil Rights & Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20256,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125059,"Sponsor frames repurchase right for property taken by school districts as racial and economic‑justice fix",1139,3814900,4954000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a&start=3814&end=4954","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a/thumbnail_3814900.jpg","/articles/6125059/Washington/Sponsor-frames-repurchase-right-for-property-taken-by-school-districts-as-racial-and-economicjustice-fix","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125059-2322dc00afd8f20ba055e29f6a8ee0c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145151&Signature=eq1rd11jdJ0uQ~id11cJvLgA4xAlJ-O7SH8pdr0a3-pUQLlG0fLExewL04pbGG2LfMeNgmXww4Ic46F4S8ZWo9aJu3VLm8AOhLpFz91MNbwuPIwazQz4fAqPcZEZD0f4FPs6h8Oj0py6VwflzK4T4NUswxruLsNpTlzHapWopm6LcHs~crPTbdzUC6XTdMv06oxqZ~dMlW8btR5X8EmMnqBRj~eZj6EvQlZ1fxIpFmHspxNO-4o2dxXN87ULCPi9ejuQWhqp3BFx3EOSicGchpyN6SrIpiZ3-sfesGP5LvzJ-DdN2eZTlu1fjEDD0ByNiIW4r3LoCsXt1xLKFZPMQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 5,142, which would require school districts that acquire property by condemnation or under threat of condemnation to offer the property back to the prior owner at the original acquisition price if the land is not put to the public use for which it was taken.

John Brzezinski, staff to the committee, said the repurchase right would trigger in three circumstances: when the planned public use is canceled before being put to use, when no actual progress toward the public use is made within ten years after acquisition, or when the property becomes unnecessary for the public use or a substantially similar use. Brzezinski said the district would have to send a written offer by certified mail to each person identified with good‑faith and reasonable diligence, and the owner would have 60 days to accept. The obligation would end if the district puts the property to the intended public use, if 15 years elapse, or if the prior owner waives the right in writing.

Sponsor Sen. Bob Hasegawa said the measure was driven by a family case and broader concerns about dispossession and racial inequity. He described how the Houston family’s Renton property was taken and later redeveloped, and he said the bill was a narrow, prospective remedy for future acquisitions. “School districts should not be real‑estate investors,” Hasegawa said, arguing the proposal prevents districts from holding condemned land solely to resell at a profit.

John Houston, whose family’s property was condemned and later developed, testified in person and described his family’s experience of arson and intimidation followed by loss of land and the long‑term wealth impacts. Houston urged lawmakers to support the bill so other families do not suffer the same outcome.

School‑district representatives and counties asked the committee to clarify how the repurchase rule would interact with long development timelines, bond failures or litigation. Brian Buck of the Lake Washington School District said districts facing repeated bond failures and lengthy planning timelines could be disadvantaged by a strict repurchase rule and asked for amendments to account for that operational reality.

Why it matters: The bill would create a statutory repurchase right intended to limit windfall gains from condemnation and to address historic patterns of land loss that sponsors described as disproportionately affecting minority landowners.

What’s next: The hearing generated pro‑ and con‑testimony and questions about how to craft exceptions for legitimate, long‑running public projects; no committee vote was recorded.","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 5,142, which would require school districts that acquire property by condemnation to offer to sell it back to the prior owner if the property is not used for its intended public purpose.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125064,"Committee hears Uniform Custodial Trusts Act proposal to simplify trusts for individuals and families",312,3415580,3727790,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a&start=3415&end=3727","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a/thumbnail_3415580.jpg","/articles/6125064/Washington/Committee-hears-Uniform-Custodial-Trusts-Act-proposal-to-simplify-trusts-for-individuals-and-families","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125064-1b3b314d5428de1e837e979f606d988f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145151&Signature=hAv59T~bchWTntMfygq1glQgpTFW2RBvL7ogfoCOHEF6sj0bPVKXsgIHVPBcjhZlGTb7qePn8HRpq9SYKM~rskmsna9xP7TU3s2gyB~BIJpL9xtGfGXtSzSthCtDVAnTItXjVmyEoAJX~ndxSEf5XiAV18YEXfFV-w6fZI2Xekw8G~28~WWT2DPMkAFfQqy7DPvIo0qPaD~HDDAU7W-0BHFMpM4Z76heO8cJms9IJISSxNZljhDatixMiTyx~LBkPtTkQaQjCBx5khs8TjYTWcuygp8t5oH7Yj79Z5YrhK0nWoCpDp53HkEOdnCzErLAEeCc9k8QfC0fD3usoFDfFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee staff presented engrossed Senate Bill 5,037, which would adopt the Uniform Custodial Trusts Act to govern creation, administration and termination of custodial trusts in Washington.

Yolanda Baker, staff to the committee, said a custodial trust allows a trustee to hold and manage property for a beneficiary and can be created by written transfer or declaration. Baker explained that a distinguishing feature of custodial trusts is the beneficiary’s power, when not incapacitated, to direct investments and distributions; if the beneficiary is incapacitated the trustee must administer the trust under a prudent‑person standard and may expend funds for the beneficiary and dependents.

Sponsor Sen. Jeff Holy told the committee the measure is technical and intended to reduce formality and cost for small fiduciary arrangements while preserving court oversight when disputes arise. He said the act lets people create custodial trusts with less expensive procedures and still allows parties to petition courts for relief when necessary.

The bill sets procedures for successor trustees, clarifies trustee duties and protects third parties who deal in good faith with custodial trustees, Baker said. Staff referred members to the bill analysis for statutory text and examples.

Why it matters: The proposal aims to make a recognized fiduciary tool more accessible for families — for example, to hold payments for an incapacitated person without a conservator — potentially reducing costs and delays that can arise from formal guardianship or conservatorship proceedings.

What’s next: The bill was presented for information; staff indicated a willingness to answer follow‑up questions by email and no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.","Senate Bill 5037 would adopt the Uniform Custodial Trusts Act to allow simpler custodial trusts for beneficiaries, including provisions for trusts to hold assets for incapacitated individuals without a conservator, successor trustees and termination rules.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125069,"Panel backs technical fixes to protection‑order law and new penalty for undetectable firearms; some groups raise due‑process concerns",337,1613100,1950780,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a&start=1613&end=1950","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a/thumbnail_1613100.jpg","/articles/6125069/Washington/Panel-backs-technical-fixes-to-protectionorder-law-and-new-penalty-for-undetectable-firearms-some-groups-raise-dueprocess-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125069-c5261de3a209e50502526927b4b282cb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145151&Signature=agzWDmY~ce06KUhYBp2~mEEbcB1FHDn~ctsDVOQl73qoel1jk~o6og4HlA18xgCJTEtSllmoFnNZ5KwLfZLMlWq2yhi1Ou~PzXToJGmy4D-D7HsyFnnlI4EVnGtKsZvhHI3KNhmxAmyqcWzIWrDIbsRNFoJsMn0u8bc0mdCCQOhtUxXVUxaLFfaz1UHRruDL1xCl7b4ziU~ztMAWuOhjp79Xfk11ybj2p5glbCQg4A1rNZvw5McqSszpIT0s~v0luM4OskRv~Tt6uoLC1k3je4t~S~qMdDWlPX~ISaXqJucu7D5zWCPpIQNIIikba7fewL3N9zHEPFnlFN3h9Frm5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee reviewed engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5,202, a measure that combines technical updates to civil protection‑order statutes with enhanced penalties for possession of untraceable or undetectable firearms — commonly referred to as “ghost guns.”

Evie Adams, staff to the committee, said the bill would allow a person who was protected as a minor to petition for renewal after turning 18 without alleging new facts and would permit a protected party to move to terminate or modify an ex parte protection order without notice to the respondent when the respondent has not been served. Adams also said the bill makes issuance of mutual full protection orders “strongly disfavored,” requires typewritten orders, and expands use of a confidential information form.

On firearm offenses, Adams said the bill would increase the grade of unlawful possession when a person subject to a qualifying protection order possesses an untraceable or undetectable firearm: possession would become first‑degree unlawful possession of a firearm, a Class B felony, if the weapon is untraceable or undetectable while the order is in effect.

Sen. (sponsor) told the committee the 2021 protection‑order reforms made the system more accessible, producing higher filings, and that ESSB 5202 is intended to fix technical problems and address implementation gaps that surfaced since that reform. The sponsor also said strengthening penalties for ghost guns responds to incidents in which prohibited persons obtained weapons that evade standard detection and tracing.

Washington County prosecutors and domestic‑violence advocates generally supported the bill’s technical changes and its firearm‑related provisions. Sandra Shanahan, program manager for the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit at the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, said the bill “makes key improvements” and “ensures that abusers face swift consequences if they're found with undetectable or unserialized firearms while prohibited.” Elizabeth Hendren, a staff attorney with a statewide violence law center, said the minor‑renewal provision addressed inconsistent court practice and avoided forcing a newly turned‑18 petitioner to carry a higher burden.

Law‑enforcement representatives praised measures making orders legible and discouraging mutual full orders, which they said can complicate enforcement in the field. James McMahon, policy director for the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said the typewritten‑order requirement helps officers decipher orders during nighttime responses.

Several defense and civil‑liberties groups urged caution. Ramona Brandes of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Washington Defender Association said disfavoring mutual protection orders could produce a “race to the courthouse” and argued those decisions are best left to judicial discretion. She asked the committee to preserve judges’ ability to assess dueling petitions on a case‑by‑case basis.

Prosecutors and victim‑advocates said enforcing surrender and notification requirements for firearms remains a practical challenge and argued the bill clarifies processes needed to implement those duties.

Why it matters: The bill alters procedural rules that affect the ability of petitioners — including minors turning 18 — to retain protection; it also raises the penalty for possessing untraceable or undetectable firearms while under court orders, a change intended to reduce risks to petitioners, court personnel and officers.

What’s next: The committee took testimony; sponsors and stakeholders signaled further technical conversations and requested continued coordination with prosecutors and advocates on implementation details.","The committee heard ESSB 5202, which would make procedural changes to civil protection orders — including allowing minors to renew orders after turning 18 — and increase penalties for possessing untraceable or undetectable firearms while subject to qualifying court orders.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125073,"Committee hears changes to common‑interest community law, including resale‑certificate waiver and reserve‑fund rules",1517,58830,1576350,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a&start=58&end=1576","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678687-7bda94be36ed8f03a5957ad2f61ee73a/thumbnail_58830.jpg","/articles/6125073/Washington/Committee-hears-changes-to-commoninterest-community-law-including-resalecertificate-waiver-and-reservefund-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125073-4b164d68a8d066da9dc2221bb2638354/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145151&Signature=hXdg--kbyMqsDilju4mRtTUvoFjpgysITetCnoPAcI8Y9mymxjK2phTRduBtabBaDvMa9HYFeibC0D4z0TimW2WrUvGshOeENdRGzsv1Ww5iDJ0NK2Jlfb8rQaCqQ~ZwZGHATTkhUUY8BAHyGj4bCXrzBp~a22OJa-avse6rF0lvgqUuxKD4P9SPWks5Jd15W0IPscPPxPuD9EyQC4m3j2mQ6j0s9CCNBRxnz-yLRVsvaDW-xJuABoGuaLYBubYU2ZtQ5BJYyiBVI7Knh0qj~EaRCIm~cDp8QH8Akcmrh-0GVMUGdH-eGv2V7z7OeTPSl82jbREtykhdDveV7~8pAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Tuesday heard staff and stakeholder testimony on engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5,129, which would make revisions to Washington’s law governing common‑interest communities, including condominiums and homeowners associations.

Yolanda Baker, staff to the committee, told members that the bill “relates to common interest communities” and would apply additional WOCIOA (the Washington Uniform Common Ownership Act) provisions next January to legacy communities now governed by older statutes. Baker said the bill expands the small‑community thresholds from 12 units and $300 average annual assessments to communities of up to 50 units and assessments not exceeding $1,000 per unit, per year.

The bill would also revise how boards may keep reserve funds and change resale‑certificate rules, Baker said. Under the proposal, the board may hold reserve funds in cash or money‑market accounts and, under conditions, in certificates of deposit or U.S. Treasury bills; boards could invest in securities only when the total reserve exceeds $250,000 and new investments would not reduce interest‑bearing reserves below 50% of the fund. On resale certificates, the bill would allow a buyer to waive receipt of the certificate “if the resale certificate is unavailable,” and it sets circumstances — for example, when the seller has made three good‑faith requests without a response — under which the certificate is considered unavailable.

Sen. Jamie Peterson, sponsor, described the measure as the product of a year of stakeholder negotiation and compromise. Peterson said the bill reflects three primary topics addressed over the summer: defining small communities to limit the burden on very small associations, crafting circumstances when a resale certificate can be waived, and adopting consumer‑protection and flexibility changes sought by homeowner advocates. “Only things that all of the folks there could agree on are included in the bill,” Peterson said.

Representatives of stakeholder groups offered largely supportive testimony while noting unresolved concerns. Bill Clark of Washington Realtors said the changes “clarify the availability of resale certificates” and help the industry in a period of statutory transition. Steve Horvath, speaking for Homeowners United, said the bill will move communities toward an “open meeting standard” and uniform rules, while acknowledging some stakeholders still seek additional changes. Hillary Bublitz of the Community Associations Institute Legislative Action Committee said CAI supported the bill as a reasonable compromise reached after months of review.

Several homeowners and management professionals said they want more homeowner representation in the negotiation process and asked for additional measures, including a state ombudsman and more plain‑language statutes. Michelle Haraney, president of the Evergreen Point HOA board, urged lawmakers to consider rolling back the requirement that pre‑2018 HOAs be subject to WOCIOA and to create an ombudsman in the attorney general’s office. Theresa Hammer, a management‑company representative, asked for more lead time for reserve requirements and said district thresholds should account for a community’s actual assets, not just lot count.

Committee members asked for clarifications about the makeup of stakeholder groups and the transition timeline; no formal action was taken at the hearing.

Why it matters: The bill would unify and extend parts of the Uniform Common Ownership Act to legacy associations across Washington and change rules that affect buyers, seller disclosures and how associations manage long‑term funds — areas that can affect property sales, homeowner assessments and board governance.

What’s next: The committee took testimony and did not record a vote at the hearing. Sponsors and stakeholders indicated continued negotiations and possible amendments ahead of any floor action.","A Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee hearing reviewed engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5,129, which would expand parts of the Washington Uniform Common Ownership Act to older and smaller common‑interest communities, revise reserve‑fund investment rules and allow resale‑certificate waivers under limited conditions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears broad bill to restrict weapons at parks, public buildings and county fairs; advocates split

Sponsor frames repurchase right for property taken by school districts as racial and economic‑justice fix

Committee hears Uniform Custodial Trusts Act proposal to simplify trusts for individuals and families

Panel backs technical fixes to protection‑order law and new penalty for undetectable firearms; some groups raise due‑process concerns

Committee hears changes to common‑interest community law, including resale‑certificate waiver and reserve‑fund rules