HB 2246
In CommitteeHouse
Student firearm violations
Updating policies for elementary and secondary school students with firearm violations.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates Washington’s school discipline rules for students who bring firearms—or items that look like firearms—onto school property or transportation. It makes expulsion mandatory for real firearms (with limited exceptions), allows discretion for fake-looking firearms, and adds new requirements for education during suspension, readmission decisions, and reengagement planning. The bill also clarifies that these rules apply to all public schools, including charter and state-tribal schools.
- Students who bring a real firearm onto school property, transportation, or school facilities must be expelled for at least one year, unless the chief administrator modifies the expulsion on a case-by-case basis.
- Students who display a fake-looking firearm with 'malice' (intentional wrongdoing) may be suspended or expelled for up to one year, at the school’s discretion.
- During suspension or expulsion, schools must provide educational services to the student (e.g., alternative learning), and other school types (charter, state-tribal, etc.) may also provide such services.
- After the suspension/expulsion period, schools may deny readmission or limit participation in activities, but only after a formal decision by the school board or governing body, with opportunity for parents to request reconsideration.
- Schools must hold a reengagement meeting to plan how the student will continue learning (e.g., full return, partial return, or alternative setting), and review the plan every six months.
Who is affected
- Elementary and secondary school students — Students who bring real firearms or fake-looking firearms onto school property, transportation, or school-owned facilities face mandatory expulsion (for real firearms) or possible suspension/expulsion (for fake-looking firearms).
- School districts and other educational institutions — School districts, charter schools, state-tribal education compact schools, the state school for the blind, the Washington center for deaf and hard of hearing youth, and educational service districts must follow new rules for disciplining students with firearm violations, including providing alternative education and making readmission decisions.
- Parents or legal guardians of disciplined students — Parents or guardians of disciplined students gain the right to request reconsideration of readmission decisions and must participate in reengagement planning.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandatory one-year expulsion for real firearms significantly raises the baseline deterrent against bringing actual firearms into schools, enhancing perceived and actual safety for students, teachers, and staff—especially in districts where prior discipline policies were inconsistent or lenient.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(i)Allowing discretion for fake-looking firearms (only if 'malice' is shown) avoids over-punishing students who engage in reckless but non-criminal behavior (e.g., toy guns, airsoft), reducing unnecessary exclusion from school while still addressing intentional threats—balancing safety and proportionality.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ii)Mandating educational services during suspension/expulsion helps prevent academic regression and disengagement, especially for students who might otherwise fall through the cracks—supporting long-term educational attainment and reducing dropout risk.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)Requiring board-level review of readmission denials and mandating reengagement meetings with parents/guardians strengthens due process and family involvement, giving families a formal avenue to advocate for their child’s return and continued education.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(b) & (4)(a)Clarifying that the law applies uniformly across all public school types—including charter, state-tribal, and special schools—reduces regulatory fragmentation and ensures consistent safety standards statewide, aiding compliance for school administrators.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b) & (7)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandatory one-year expulsion for real firearms (with only discretionary modification) may disproportionately remove students with developmental disabilities, neurodivergent students, or those in crisis from educational settings without adequate alternative supports, increasing risk of disengagement, recidivism, or involvement with juvenile justice—especially for students already overrepresented in discipline (e.g., Black, Indigenous, low-income students).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(i)Allowing charter, state-tribal, and other schools to deny readmission or limit extracurricular participation after firearm-related discipline—without requiring standardized criteria or oversight—risks creating a two-tiered system where students in non-traditional schools face harsher long-term consequences, reducing educational equity across school types.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)(ii)-(iii)Requiring schools to provide alternative educational services during suspension/expulsion increases per-student costs for districts already facing budget constraints, especially in high-need areas—though no state funding is provided to offset this mandate, shifting costs to local property taxpayers and potentially diverting funds from core academic programs.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a) & fiscal impact noteMandating six-month reevaluation of reengagement plans increases administrative burden on school staff (counselors, administrators, special education teams), potentially reducing time available for direct instruction or student support—particularly impactful in understaffed districts.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)The term 'malice' is legally undefined in the bill and imported from criminal law (RCW 9A.04.110), which may lead to inconsistent application—especially for younger students or those with cognitive disabilities—risking subjective or punitive discipline that infringes on due process rights without clear guidance.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)(ii) & (1)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Students who bring real firearms face long-term exclusion from school, which may disrupt education and increase risk of disengagement or justice system involvement—especially for students with disabilities or from marginalized groups. However, the bill includes procedural safeguards (e.g., reconsideration, reengagement planning) that may mitigate worst outcomes for some.
School districts and charter schools gain clearer authority to remove students with real firearms, reducing liability exposure, but face new costs for alternative education and administrative processes. The bill also extends discipline authority to charter and state-tribal schools, increasing compliance burden but standardizing expectations.
Parents gain formal rights to request reconsideration and participate in reengagement planning, strengthening voice in disciplinary outcomes. However, low-income or linguistically diverse families may lack resources to navigate complex administrative processes, potentially worsening inequitable outcomes.
Law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies may see reduced caseloads if the bill deters firearm bringing—but could see increased referrals if expelled students disengage and become involved in delinquency due to lack of support.
Students with disabilities (especially neurodivergent or emotionally disturbed) are at higher risk of misinterpreting the 'malice' standard or being disproportionately disciplined under vague criteria, potentially violating IDEA mandates unless schools provide robust procedural safeguards.