With the Washington State Supreme Court preparing to consider the constitutionality of a state law banning firearms magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on Monday filed an amicus brief with the court supporting the challenge.
At issue in the case, State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns, et al., is whether the state can prohibit ownership, sale and use of standard-capacity magazines that come stock with the vast majority of semi-auto firearms on the market today. Washington’s law prohibits such magazines.
“Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Washington’s attempt to punish a gun store for selling magazines that are commonly used must fail,” the brief argued. “Bruen unequivocally reaffirmed what District of Columbia v. Heller taught: All instruments that compose bearable ‘arms’ are covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. That certainly includes the magazines which are necessary for the proper functioning of a firearm.”
The brief further stated: “By artificially limiting how many rounds a firearm can store and expel without reloading, the State has restricted conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and so the challenged law is unconstitutional unless the State can prove its regulation is justified by a historical exception.”
According to the brief, the state wasn’t able to meet that requirement in the lower courts.
“It has not done so,” the brief continued. “Here again, Bruen and Heller speak in one voice. As a matter of history, arms in common use for lawful purposes, such as self-defense or target practice, are protected and their possession and use cannot be banned—full stop. There can be no question whatsoever that magazines that can hold more than ten rounds are overwhelmingly common. That requires affirming the district court’s judgment.”
Indeed, as the brief further explained, the state doesn’t have a leg to stand on in arguing for the magazine ban.
“The only historical tradition that could plausibly justify restricting magazines with greater than 10 rounds is the prohibition on the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ But Washington’s law cannot be justified by this historical tradition because magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are ‘commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’ Thus, they are not the type of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons that are a mark of impending criminal violence.”
Brand Combs, FPC president said in a news release that the Washington Supreme Court must overturn the law because of both constitutional and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“Immoral bans on standard firearm magazines must be put to an end,” Combs said. “The Washington Supreme Court should follow the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent and enjoin enforcement of this unconstitutional law.”
