They're listening

https://youtu.be/5cdVVfx-qEs?si=Rl6feWkNxid11OLg

Coming to a gun shop near you soon.



Terry

Only Washington state……..

**Washington State Laws on Audio Recording Requirements for FFL Dealers as of July 1, 2025**

Washington State has implemented specific regulations for Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealers under House Bill 2118 (ESHB 2118), effective July 1, 2025, which include requirements for audio and video surveillance. Below is a detailed examination of these laws, focusing on the audio recording mandate, its legal implications, and how it interacts with Washington’s privacy laws, particularly RCW 9.73.030, which governs two-party consent for recording private communications.

### Key Findings on FFL Audio Recording Requirements

1. **House Bill 2118 (2023) and Surveillance Requirements**:
- **Legislation Overview**: ESHB 2118, signed into law in 2023, amended Washington’s firearms dealer regulations under RCW 9.41.110. Effective July 1, 2025, FFL dealers are required to install and maintain digital video and audio surveillance systems at their premises. These systems must operate 24 hours a day, capturing all entries, exits, areas where firearms are displayed, and points of sale.[](https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/...nors-desk/)[](https://flxpoint.com/blog/ffl-license-gu...rearm-laws)[](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-law...ashington/)
- **Storage and Access**: Recordings must be stored for a minimum of 45 to 90 days, depending on the location and content of the recording. These recordings must be made available upon request through a court order, search warrant, insurance claim, or civil discovery process.[](https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/...nors-desk/)
- **Signage Requirement**: Dealers must post conspicuous signs at each entrance notifying patrons that the premises are under video and audio surveillance.[](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-law...ashington/)
- **Compliance and Penalties**: Failure to comply with these surveillance requirements can result in a class C felony and potential revocation of the dealer’s license. Additionally, dealers must carry a general liability insurance policy with at least $1,000,000 of coverage per incident.[](https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/...nors-desk/)[](https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-law...ashington/)

2. **Impact on FFL Dealers**:
- The law imposes significant burdens, particularly on smaller or home-based FFLs, due to the high costs of installing and maintaining 24/7 audio and video surveillance systems, along with storage requirements for up to 90 days.[](https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/...nors-desk/)
- Posts on X and other sources indicate concerns that these requirements may force smaller FFLs out of business, limiting access to firearms, especially in rural areas.[](https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/...nors-desk/)

3. **Interaction with Washington’s Two-Party Consent Law (RCW 9.73.030)**:
- **Washington’s Privacy Law**: Washington is a two-party consent state, meaning it is generally illegal to record private communications or conversations without the consent of all parties involved. RCW 9.73.030 prohibits intercepting or recording private communications transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other devices, or in-person conversations, unless all participants consent. Consent can be obtained by announcing in a reasonably effective manner that the conversation is being recorded, and this announcement must be recorded.[](https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washing...ording-law)[](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?...ding-laws/)
- **Application to FFL Surveillance**: The requirement for audio surveillance in FFL shops raises potential conflicts with RCW 9.73.030. X posts have questioned the legality of mandatory audio recording, given the state’s strict privacy laws.
- **Resolution via Signage and Consent**: The signage requirement under ESHB 2118 likely serves as a mechanism to obtain passive consent. By posting conspicuous signs notifying patrons of audio and video surveillance, FFL dealers inform customers that their interactions may be recorded. In Washington, courts have held that consent can be implied if a party is aware of the recording and continues the conversation (e.g., *State v. Townsend*, 57 P.3d 255, 260 (Wash. 2002)). Thus, patrons who enter an FFL after seeing the signage are considered to have consented to the recording, satisfying RCW 9.73.030.[](https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washing...ording-law)[](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording...ashington/)
- **Private vs. Public Conversations**: Washington courts determine whether a conversation is “private” based on factors such as the location, the presence of third parties, and the reasonable expectation of privacy (*Lewis v. Washington*, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006)). Conversations in an FFL shop, especially at points of sale, may not be deemed private if conducted in a public-facing area or in the presence of others, particularly with clear signage indicating surveillance.[](https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party...ding-laws/)[](https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording...ashington/)

4. **Exceptions to Two-Party Consent**:
- RCW 9.73.030 includes exceptions where one-party consent may suffice, such as for communications involving threats, extortion, bribery, or other criminal activity, or for anonymous or repeated harassing communications. However, these exceptions are unlikely to apply broadly to routine FFL transactions.[](https://www.justanswer.com/law/mpkvg-sta...-boss.html)[](https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/...ersations/)
- Law enforcement can record conversations with one-party consent if authorized by a judge with probable cause that a felony has been, is being, or will be committed (*RCW 9.73.090(2)*). This does not directly apply to FFL dealers but could be relevant if recordings are requested for criminal investigations.[](https://www.seattleattorneysblog.com/use...inal-case/)

5. **Practical and Legal Implications**:
- **Compliance Challenges**: FFL dealers, especially smaller operations, face significant costs for installing high-resolution cameras, audio equipment, and storage systems capable of retaining 45–90 days of footage. Some dealers, as noted in a California FFL’s experience with similar laws, have opted for robust local storage systems to avoid reliance on cloud-based solutions, citing concerns about internet outages and ransomware.[](https://ipcamtalk.com/threads/california...-ca.74047/)
- **Privacy Concerns**: The mandatory audio recording requirement has sparked debate, with some X users labeling it a “2A overreach” and expressing concerns about government surveillance. However, the signage requirement and the public nature of FFL transactions mitigate legal risks under RCW 9.73.030.
- **Court Admissibility**: Recordings obtained without proper consent under RCW 9.73.030 are generally inadmissible in court, except in specific circumstances (e.g., law enforcement with judicial approval). However, FFL recordings made in compliance with ESHB 2118 (with signage and implied consent) are likely admissible in criminal or civil proceedings, as they meet the consent requirement.[](https://www.seattleattorneysblog.com/use...inal-case/)

6. **Comparison with Other States**:
- California has similar surveillance requirements for FFLs, effective January 1, 2024, mandating 24/7 audio and video recording at points of sale and storage areas. Washington’s law appears to follow this model, as noted in discussions on IP Cam Talk.[](https://ipcamtalk.com/threads/california...-ca.74047/)
- Unlike Washington, some states (e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Washington, D.C.) are one-party consent states for audio recordings, meaning only one party needs to consent. Washington’s stricter two-party consent law makes the signage and implied consent mechanism critical for FFL compliance.[](https://surveillancesecure.com/washingto...gulations/)[](https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/...ersations/)

### Critical Analysis
The requirement for audio surveillance in FFL shops under ESHB 2118 appears to be legally reconciled with RCW 9.73.030 through the mandated signage, which informs patrons of recording and establishes implied consent. However, the law places a significant financial and operational burden on FFL dealers, particularly smaller or home-based operations, which may lead to closures and reduced firearm access, as noted by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. The lack of explicit exemptions for home-based FFLs in the legislation has raised concerns, as highlighted in X posts.[](https://congressionalsportsmen.org/news/...nors-desk/)

There is no direct evidence from the provided sources that the ATF itself mandates audio recordings; the requirement stems from Washington state law, not federal regulation. Claims on X suggesting direct ATF involvement appear to be

It's not just audio, hd video is required as well. Most of the small dealers have closed up or left.

It's not just audio, hd video is required as well. Most of the small dealers have closed up or left.

Exactly what they want, get rid of all FFL’s And then they will control the eastern part of the state