The Washington State Supreme Court decision on May 8 is an example of an activist court cherry-picking definitions to create anti-gun outcomes, even against common sense and the clear dictates of the Constitution and Bruen Supreme Court precedent.
The Washington State Supreme Court reversed a Cowlitz County Superior Court decision, upholding the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines. The ruling reinstates the 2022 law (ESSB 5078) prohibiting the sale, manufacture, and distribution of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. It should be noted that nearly all manufacturers include magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds (and usually 30) as standard with the purchase of the firearm.
As we reported last year, Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc., a Kelso-based gun shop, and its owner, Walter Wentz, challenged the law after allegedly continuing to sell LCMs, arguing it violated both the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution.
Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Gary Bashor initially sided with Gator’s in 2023, declaring ESSB 5078 unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. Bashor ruled that LCMs are “arms” integral to firearms and thus protected. That decision was reversed within hours.
In this recent 53-page decision, the court almost unbelievably states, “We hold that ESSB 5078 does not violate either the Washington or United States Constitutional protection of the right to bear arms.”
A dissenting opinion by Justice Gordon McCloud argued that LCMs are “bearable arms” under Heller and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, as they facilitate armed self-defense and are in common use, with millions owned nationwide. McCloud criticized the majority for misapplying Second Amendment precedent and suggested that the state’s law lacks a historical analog, rendering it unconstitutional.
Whether through ignorance, or gross mischaracterization, the court clearly misunderstands what magazines do:
In sum, we hold that LCMs are not “arms” in the Constitutional sense because they are designed to be attached to a weapon in order to modify it by increasing that firearm’s ammunition capacity, and they are not designed for use as a weapon themselves. Accordingly, we hold that LCMs do not fit the Constitutional definition of “arms” before even reaching whether they are “commonly used for self-defense.”
Because the firearm for which these magazines are designed cannot function without them, it’s clear as to the court’s intentions – backdoor disarmament. But it also begs the question: if they are not arms, under what authority can they be banned? The case is clearly ripe for Supreme Court intervention.
