Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

The Supreme Court in Washington has upheld the state’s 2022 ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Some shit you should know before you read: If you’re unaware, back in 2022, Washington lawmakers passed a law prohibiting the sale, manufacture, and import of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, as part of an effort they say would curb mass shootings and enhance public safety. The law quickly drew opposition from gun rights advocates, resulting in a legal challenge led by Gator’s Custom Guns, a firearms retailer based in Kelso. Basically, the shop argued that the ban violated both the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. Specifically, the plaintiffs said that law-abiding citizens commonly own high-capacity magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and that restricting them infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights. To the contrary, the state argued that large-capacity magazines are not “arms” protected by the Constitution, but rather accessories that are not essential for self-defense and can be reasonably regulated to promote public safety.

What’s going on now: After a year-long battle through the courts, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling upholding the 2022 law banning the sale, manufacture, and import of high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The majority opinion, written by Justice Charles Johnson, determined that large-capacity magazines are not constitutionally protected “arms” under either the US or Washington State Constitutions. Johnson wrote that restricting magazine capacity does not impair a person’s core right to possess a firearm for self-defense because the firearm remains fully functional with a 10-round magazine.

The court also found insufficient evidence showing that high-capacity magazines are commonly used for self-defense, which is the threshold set by past Second Amendment rulings.

Johnson noted that “large capacity magazines are not ‘arms,'” and that the state’s restriction still allows individuals to exercise their right to bear arms meaningfully. The court also rejected the lower court’s reliance on the US Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, noting that since magazines are not considered “arms,” the historical tradition test did not apply.

In dissent, Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener strongly disagreed, arguing that high-capacity magazines are an integral part of many modern firearms and therefore fall under constitutional protection. McCloud argued that magazines are not optional accessories but essential to the function of semiautomatic firearms, and that the Second Amendment also protects “arms-bearing conduct,” not just the arms themselves.

Following the ruling, the plaintiffs announced their intention to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court.