With the Washington State Supreme Court set to begin considering the state’s ban on firearms magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, pro-rights groups are giving the court something to think about.
In the case State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns Inc., the National Rifle Association recently filed an amicus brief explaining why the law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The defendants in the case are a retail firearms dealer and its owner. The case has progressed through the system, with a trial court ruling the law unconstitutional, but in April, the state Supreme Court granted a stay.
In the brief, the NRA began its argument by simply asserting that past Supreme Court cases have set the precedent necessary for the court to find the law unconstitutional.
“Because Americans own over 100 million magazines that hold over 10 rounds, the prohibited arms are common,” the brief stated. “And the Supreme Court has held that bans on common arms violate the Second Amendment.”
The brief then explained that the law doesn’t meet legal muster under the “plain text” of the Second Amendment standard.
“Heller, invalidating the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, applied the test later expounded in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which controls here: ‘In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,’” the brief stated. “Conducting the plain text analysis of the Second Amendment, Heller determined that ‘[t]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.’”
The Bruen standard also requires a historical analysis, which the NRA argued in their brief is a standard that also cannot be met in the Washington magazine case.
The State failed to provide a historical tradition of prohibiting common arms. Nor could it; as Heller held, there is no such tradition,” the brief stated. “Although magazines and repeating arms with greater than 10-round capacities existed during the relevant historical periods, the State instead relies on restrictions—not prohibitions—on weapons such as trap guns, clubs, Bowie knives, and handguns.”
The brief also went into a lengthy explanation of how the state’s argument that magazines holding more than 10 rounds have only been developed recently is incorrect.
“The State attempts to excuse its failure to carry its burden by asserting that the banned arms represent ‘recently developed technology,’” the brief stated. “In fact, repeating arms predate the Second Amendment by roughly three centuries; repeating arms utilizing magazines predate the Second Amendment by over one century; the Founders embraced repeating arms—including Joseph Belton’s 16-shot firearm during the Revolutionary War and Joseph Chambers’s 12-shot muskets and 226-shot swivel guns purchased by the U.S. military and Pennsylvania militia in the early 19th century.”
The brief also mentioned, “… myriad repeating arms with greater than 10-round capacities were invented in 19th-century America—including the commercially successful 16-shot Henry Rifle in 1861 and the overwhelmingly popular Winchester Rifles starting in 1866; and semiautomatic firearms were invented in 1885, while detachable box magazines were invented in 1862. Despite continuous technological advancements over hundreds of years and their widespread popularity in the 19th century, neither the sale nor possession of repeating arms of any capacity were ever banned in America.”
In the end, the brief argued that the court should find the magazine ban unconstitutional and bar enforcement of it.
“Washington’s ban on commonly possessed magazines is unconstitutional,” the brief concluded. “It is not only the plain text of the Second Amendment that is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that text. The trial court’s decision is faithful to both the plain text of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that Amendment. It should be affirmed.”
This isn’t where I wanted to post this, but it is in gun control which is the topic. WTF has this site become? I stopped reading for a few years after hearing some truly absurd BS, then I get a link on an article by “hank the Gun Dealer” justifying what happened to CRS firearms, saying “if you poke the law you get the horns” more or less when it took a fed 40(!?!?) minutes and a Dremel to do something illegal to use his card and make a “machinegun” out of it, when it was a card before. Anyone with any knowledge and a drill and file or hacksaw could do the same thing in that time, plus he posted a picture of of this “offending” card, so scaled up what’s the difference between him and the men arrested really? Distributing the exact same thing minus some scrap sheet metal.
Next article was about some woman fearing for her grandchildren thinking that taking guns away was the right move???? Jesus what happened to you people to put up with this and keep coming back? I had nostalgia for what this place used to be, but there’s a limit somewhere. That’s true of all actual men who don’t wear their balls on the inside.
Maybe it’s not the case for…..whatever the rest of you are that will no doubt defend this indefensible BS and for sure attack this post, but I won’t be checking updates frankly, not worth my time, but you feel free to go ahead anyways and waste yours.
Don’t support people who don’t support you, and this is “supposedly” a pro 2A website. End of story.
WTF is this,
I do not understand your comment. Are you complaining that this site posts articles which you perceive to support / glorify civilian disarmament (a.k.a. “gun control”)?
Personally, I have never perceived this site to support nor glorify civilian disarmament. What this site will do is share–in an extremely critical manner no less–civilian disarmament content. I internalize those articles as educating us on what our political enemies are doing. That is an important strategy–ancient author Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War teaches us:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
WTF sounds like a troll. Never thought CRS boy was a criminal just kinda dumb. SEE:Hunter
Bidumb getting away with vast criminality. BTW I’d pardon my son for an unjust felony🙄
Isn’t the CRS story pretty old? How long have you been waiting to post this? Trolling or ulterior motive perhaps?
You “stopped reading for a few years” but get a link someway or another for an article by ‘hank the Gun Dealer’ done in 2023 that, according to you “more or less” says “if you poke the law you get the horns” because “it took a fed 40(!?!?) minutes and a Dremel to do something …”, then throw in a grandma someplace, to come here and do a spitting-gibberish rant that doesn’t make any sense?
You have wayyyy too much time on your hands.
WTF is this
The same could be ask of your post.
However, I prefer, what the hell are you talking about?
Where exactly was your head while composing this?
wtf-head…Go ahead and vent and after you’re done wipe the crybaby snot off your face, grow a pair and post something that has teeth…I.E….
h ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=ZFEz3Bt9hCw&feature=shared
‘My Babies Are Alive’: Armed Grandfather Defends Family In Sacramento Burglary Shooting.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NXZoLQsNHg
Biden Lied About Hunter’s Pardon; He’s Had Lots of Practice.
h ttps://www.ammoland.com/2024/12/biden-lied-about-hunters-pardon-hes-had-lots-of-practice/
POWERFUL NEW EVIDENCE: DOCTORS COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF SUPPRESSORS!
“A major medical organization has issued a study showing the value of suppressor to preventing hearing loss. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses.”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trJolYJ12Fs
Meanwhile, back to the content of the actual article… I wonder what the implications of this case will be in other states that ban standard capacity magazines like NY et al. Since this is a state supreme court, I imagine it won’t change much outside of Washington, but maybe new precedent to use in other states? Mind boggling if the Washington Supreme Court agrees with the gun banners and anti-constitutionalists of the left on this one…
It’s the WA Supreme Court, anything is possible with the group of commies.
The WA Supreme Court will do double backflips to support the magazine ban, no matter how much that have to contort the actual law to do so.
Other similar cases are further along the federal appeals in various circuits so would not have much influence on the east coast (likely). This will likely just settle the issu for WA unless unfavorable then on to 9th for an additional add on to what they already have brewing.
The trouble with Noo Yark is before any law will change you will have to undo the political class’ massive cranial rectal inversion with a pry bar and a winch.
That is impossible, best we can do is further isolate their ability to do evil then find ways to attack their wealth.
I (barely) live in WA. This will go nowhere unless overturned by the SCOTUS, and even then TPTB in Olympia will make it as painful as possible, like a 100,000% sales tax on all detachable magazines (I wish this were hyperbole, but with WA probably not). Then that decision would have to wind its way through the legal process, etc…it never ends.
El…You don’t barely live in WA you barely exist there. I suggest you and every decent citizen in WA spend your free time sending this link to your legislators and let them know History clearly shows Gun Control in any shape, matter or form has no place in America and cease catering to an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide…connect the h…
h ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=ZFEz3Bt9hCw&feature=shared
No
Isn’t the state arguing that magazines aren’t arms? Everything in this NRA brief assumes that magazines aren’t “arms”. If the state is saying that magazines aren’t “accessories” not necessary to the functioning of a firearm, and the court is buying that argument (and these dorks are likely to), then the NRA isn’t really helping.
Well that typo certainly makes my post more confusing.
“everything in the NRA brief assumes that magazines ARE arms.”
Since repeating arms cannot function as intended without the magazine, the magazine is an integral part of the firearm. Just as cartridges are needed, and thus protected, so are magazines. Any argument limiting capacity is really nothing but interest balancing in disguise, i.e., a contention that reducing the harm of crime by limiting the number of shots prior to a reload is in the public interest.
Oh, I’m with you, I’m just talking about what the state is arguing versus what the NRA is responding to.
Steel AK magazines are robust enough to be used as a club, and still work afterwards.
In AK everything is universal, you can just hit with the butt, and no ammo is needed)
It’s about damned time we saw the NRA making some headlines and actually doing something to oppose anti-gun legislation.
Where the hell you people been?
The lunatic at Virginia Tech had two handguns and 19 magazines. There is no safety in limiting the number of bullets in a magazine. The killer simply has to reload slightly more oftern.
Comments are closed.