Well, this is ‘final’ so I think it can be appealed directly to SCOTUS.

Washington Supreme Court upholds ban on large ammo magazines

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state’s ban on high-capacity magazines, the latest in a two-year-long saga that has largely played out in Southwest Washington.

Lawmakers in 2022 banned the sale of ammo magazines holding more than 10 bullets in an effort to thwart deadly mass shootings. However, a gun store in Kelso allegedly continued to sell the magazines and picked up a civil lawsuit from the Washington State Attorney General in July 2023. The store owner — with help from the Pasco-based advocacy group The Silent Majority — sued, saying the law violated the U.S. Constitution.

A Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge later sided with the gun store and deemed the new law violated the Second Amendment.

Washington Supreme Court justices ruled 7-2 on Thursday that the new state law doesn’t violate Americans’ right to bear arms because “large capacity magazines are not ‘arms.’”

“The ability to purchase [large capacity magazines] is not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense,” Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision also found that the legislation does not violate the state’s constitution.

Wally Wentz, the owner of Gator’s Custom Guns in Kelso, declined to comment Thursday.

Wentz’s attorneys at the Silent Majority Foundation said they plan to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Attorney Pete Serrano said they will pore over the justices’ legal analysis first.

“As of right now, that’s the intent (to appeal),” Serrano said. “This opinion got in my hand five hour ago. We have to do dig in, cross the T’s and dot our I’s.”

Much of the 19-page opinion centered around a textual analysis of what is considered an “arm” under the Washington and U.S. constitutions.

Robert Spitzer, a former political science professor at the State University of New York at Cortland and an expert on the history of gun policy, says the term “arm” has been hotly debated for years.

For example, courts have ruled that some knives qualify as arms, such as a Bowie knife, while others like paring knives do not. States have been empowered to restrict Bowie knives for years.

In its decision, the Washington Supreme Court opined that the constitutional language intends to give people the ability to defend themselves and that large capacity magazines are not used for self-defense.

In dissent, signed by Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener, justices contended that the Second Amendment has wider protections than arms. The judges also opined that the Second Amendment protects firearms for “lawful purposes” beyond self-defense.

Spitzer noted that people can still fire more than 10 rounds, but they have to reload.

Zach Pekelis, of Seattle-based Pacifica Law Group, said federal appellate courts have agreed that prohibiting large magazines “is consistent with the Second Amendment.”

“Every single federal court of appeals that has considered the question of whether (large-capacity magazines) restrictions are constitutional has been held consistent,” Pekelis said.

Pekelis also represents the advocacy groups Alliance for Gun Responsibility and the Alliance for a Safe Oregon.

The Washington ruling reflects a similar one in Oregon. In March, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld Measure 114, a voter-approved initiative that regulates the purchase of high-capacity magazines and further regulates gun purchases.

According to Spitzer, more than a dozen states have placed restrictions on large capacity magazines.