Last week, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on magazines that hold over ten rounds, overturning a lower court order that had deemed it unconstitutional. The 7-2 decision in State v. Gator’s Custom Guns affirmed a state law enacted in 2022 that prevents the sale, manufacture and import of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The two- year legal challenge in which NRA filed an amicus brief stems from a Washington state gun shop that faced a civil lawsuit regarding the sale of the banned magazines. The shop later sued on constitutional grounds, with the lower Superior Court Judge siding with the gun store before the case ended up before the state Supreme Court for review.
Central to the state Supreme Court’s conclusion was that so-called “large capacity” magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are not considered “arms” but are an accessory that can be regulated without violating rights held under either the state or the United States constitutions. This rationale is an unfortunate and increasingly familiar one. Much of the opinion centered around a textual analysis of what is considered an ‘arm,’ as well as the contention (farcical on its face) that “large capacity” magazines are not used for self-defense.
There is an unfortunate trend for courts to uphold restrictions on the basis that the item in question is not an "arm," as a means of bypassing both Heller’s “common use” test and Bruen’s holding that government must justify limitations on Second Amendment rights by demonstrating consistency with historical tradition of firearm regulations.
Two justices dissented pointing out that the Washington law regulates how citizens use and possess arms, therefore it is, in fact, problematic in limiting Second Amendment rights. The dissenting judges also opined that the Second Amendment protects firearms for lawful purposes beyond self-defense to other legal uses and noted that it was “hard to imagine a semiautomatic firearm fulfilling its key purposes, including the purpose of self-defense, without a magazine.”
While the superior reasoning of the dissent did not carry the day, it does at least help lay out yet another pathway for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which to date has kicked the magazine can down the road, even as the lower courts stray ever farther afield of its precedents.
The Washington ruling is similar to the recent decision in Duncan v. Bonta, an NRA-backed challengedecided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that magazines are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment despite being essential to the function of the firearm. The four dissenting judges argued that the ban is unconstitutional. Next up will be another petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
With 14 states having some form of ban or capacity limitation on magazines, NRA has long been fighting in legislatures and various courts, including more recent efforts such as Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney Gen. That case is NRA’s challenge to New Jersey’s ban on “assault firearms” and standard 10+ round magazines. In July 2024, the district court upheld the magazine ban while holding the “assault firearm” ban unconstitutional as applied to the Colt AR-15. The case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Hanson v. District of Columbia is a challenge to the District’s ban on standard magazines that hold over 10 rounds. After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the ban is likely constitutional and denied a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. NRA filed an amicus brief supporting the petition, arguing that the Court’s precedents make clear that bans on common arms, including firearm magazines, violate the Second Amendment.
The procedural contortions in these various ongoing magazine ban cases grow more grating with each case. Recall that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected taking up the magazine ban issue in a Seventh Circuit ruling arising from an Illinois law. Justice Thomas did, however, state his view that “[t]he Seventh Circuit’s decision illustrates why this Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers” and is certainly correct that the Court will ultimately need to clarify the scope of the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. And this past January, the Court also rejected the appeals of gun owners from a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied an injunction against the state of Delaware's ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
The hope and necessity remain that this artificial distinction on magazine capacities will make its way on to the U.S. Supreme Court’ s docket sooner rather than later. Until then, NRA remains committed to ensuring the constitutional protection of all arms through strategic legislation and litigation nationwide.
More Like This From Around The NRA
