Massive Ruling – Gun Rights SHATTERED!

Washington’s highest court upholds a ban on high-capacity magazines in a 7-2 ruling that strikes a blow to gun rights advocates and sets the stage for potential further legal battles.

At a Glance

  • Washington State Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that high-capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) are not protected “arms” under the Constitution
  • The decision overturns a lower court ruling that had previously found the ban unconstitutional
  • The law prohibits sale, manufacturing, and import of larger magazines but not possession of existing ones
  • Court majority ruled that gun owners can still defend themselves using multiple smaller magazines
  • Gun rights groups may seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision

Court Upholds Restriction on Magazine Capacity

In a significant decision for gun control advocates, the Washington State Supreme Court has reinstated a ban on high-capacity firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The 7-2 ruling overturned an earlier lower court decision that had declared the law unconstitutional based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. The justices determined that magazines exceeding the 10-round limit do not qualify as “arms” under constitutional protections and therefore can be regulated without violating Second Amendment rights.

The Washington law, which took effect in 2022, specifically prohibits the sale, manufacture, distribution, and import of large-capacity magazines, with exceptions for law enforcement and military personnel. Importantly, the law does not criminalize possession of previously purchased high-capacity magazines, allowing current owners to keep their property. The case began when Gator’s Custom Guns challenged the law’s constitutionality after refusing to comply with the sales restrictions.

Court’s Reasoning and Dissent

Writing for the majority, Judge Charles Johnson emphasized that the law does not fundamentally infringe on the constitutional right to self-defense. “This regulation does not limit the number of bullets or magazines that may be purchased or possessed,” Johnson noted, suggesting that gun owners could simply carry multiple smaller magazines as an alternative. The court’s majority opinion stated that the ban doesn’t “violate either the Washington or United States constitutional protection of the right to bear arms because large capacity magazines (LCMs) are not ‘arms’ within the meaning of either constitutional provision.”

“What is unconstitutional about the state placing a limitation on the magazine amount?” Justice Helen Whitener questioned during oral arguments, though she would later join the dissent expressing a different view in the final ruling.

However, the decision was not unanimous. Judges Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener dissented, arguing for broader Second Amendment protections. Their dissenting opinion contended that the magazines in question are commonly used by law-abiding citizens and should therefore receive constitutional protection. The fundamental disagreement highlights the ongoing national debate about where to draw the line between public safety concerns and constitutional rights regarding firearms.

Reactions and Implications

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown quickly praised the court’s decision, stating that it is “right on the law and will save lives.” Gun control advocacy groups have similarly celebrated the ruling, with Everytown USA noting that Washington joins 13 other states and the District of Columbia that have enacted similar restrictions on high-capacity magazines. These advocates maintain that such magazines are frequently used in mass shootings and limiting their availability could reduce casualties in such attacks.

“There doesn’t have to be a twin regulation from the late 1700s for something that didn’t exist in the 1700s,” Washington solicitor general Noah Purcell argued before the court, addressing the historical analysis required by recent Supreme Court precedent.

On the other side, gun rights organizations including the National Rifle Association have expressed strong opposition to the ruling. The NRA argues that high-capacity magazines are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for legitimate purposes including self-defense, competitive shooting, and hunting. Legal analysts suggest this case could potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court if the plaintiffs choose to appeal, particularly as state and federal courts continue to grapple with applying the Bruen decision’s historical framework to modern gun regulations.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR