A judge in Washington has upheld the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” ruling that the controversial law meets state constitutional muster. However, his reasoning for making the ruling was completely faulty.
For some background, firearms dealer Guardian Arms sued the state over the 2023 law, claiming SHB 1240, the ban on common semi-auto rifles, violated Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms. After discovery in the case Guardian Arms v. State of Washington, both the state and the Alliance moved for summary judgment.
Last week, however, a Thurston County Superior Court judge upheld the law under the state constitution. In doing so, Judge Christine Schaller held that assault weapons are not commonly used in self-defense and are therefore not protected arms under the Washington State Constitution. The Court also held that, even if assault weapons were protected, they would be subject to reasonable regulation under the State’s police power to protect public safety and welfare.
Both points in Judge Schaller’s ruling are clearly disputable, as many courts in the past have ruled just the opposite. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice is currently weighing in on the side of the plaintiffs in two different state “assault weapons” ban cases.
In the case Barnett v. Raoul, the DOJ not only filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Illinois semi-auto law, but also will be participating in oral arguments before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing against the law’s constitutionality.
In that brief, the DOJ argued: “Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other’ constitutional rights. Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. In doing so, Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
The other state where the DOJ is backing a challenge to the ban on semi-autos is New Jersey. On September 18, DOJ attorneys filed a brief in support of the challenge to the state law in the case New Jersey State Rifle & Pistol Club v. Platkin.
“Applying these principles to the state law that is at issue here, New Jersey’s complete ban on possessing rifles such as the AR-15 and magazines with a more-than-ten-round capacity violates the Second Amendment,” the DOJ argued in that brief. “Because rifles such as the AR-15 are in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense, sporting, and the common defense, the Second Amendment protects law-abiding New Jerseyans’ right to possess them. The Second Amendment also protects those New Jerseyans’ right to possess magazines and other accessories that make constitutionally protected firearms useful for those same lawful purposes.”
Read the full article here