The Washington State Legislature is considering new gun control measures — and one in particular illustrates the sort of semantic “two-step” skeptics of our Second Amendment rights often engage in.

The first step is a proposal that some may find, at first glance and especially if they are not versed in the nuances of the issue, to be reasonable. In this case, it is an expansion of what the state will treat as “gun-free” zones to include sites where “children are likely to be present.”

But consider for a moment just how vague that language is — and how, in a municipality or county where the leadership has an underlying hostility to the right to keep and bear arms, all-encompassing that phrase could be interpreted.

Tracts of woodlands popular for hunting could well be interpreted as places where “children are likely to be present,” as hunters fear it will.

“The overbroad language is indicative of disdain anti-gun legislators have for the law-abiding citizens and their desire to turn the entire state of Washington into a gun free zone,” Brian Keelan of the Washington State Rifle and Pistol Association testified before lawmakers, according to the NBC affiliate in Kennewick, Wash. “This state has plenty of firearms laws, drug laws, gang laws, driving laws to protect people and what we need is enforcement of current laws.”

We agree that enforcement of more clearly-defined existing laws is the better approach to preventing gun violence — and, as we have editorialized before, more diligent efforts to address recidivism, starting with providing law enforcement and probation and parole offices with the resources they need would likewise better reduce violent crime.

We further agree this proposal places an undue burden on Americans exercising their clear Constitutional rights to attempt to guess which public places authorities will decide are places “children are likely to be present.” We fear such decisions will be uneven, unfairly applied and an unacceptable infringement not only on Second Amendment rights but on the right to equal treatment before the law.

We hope this proposal is rejected by the Evergreen State’s lawmakers and we hope our own state lawmakers, recognizing its shortcomings and risks, do not consider any similar proposals in Pennsylvania.