Hello and everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, this will be a video that's predominantly for the hometown crowd, but candidly, I think you all should pay attention, especially if you're in one of those states that's just real hell bent on disarming all of the civilians there. We're going to circle back again on the big magazine ban case we got coming up next month before our state Supreme Court. Of course, that is State of Washington verse Gators guns. We're going through the Attorney General's memorandum here, and yes, I'm doing my breathing exercises and yes, I'm bringing in a barf bag. I am a retired drinker, so I don't get to bring the three fingers of bourbon, but I got to be honest with you, when you read a brief like this, I sometimes think maybe I should start drinking again. I'm going to share with you a couple of other theories that the state of Washington is using in their memorandum. It's absolutely infuriating and it's very, very dangerous. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about the state that believes it can disarm all of its citizens.
Okay, everyone, here's what we're talking about today. We're talking about literally one of the most offensive briefs you will ever seen written by any attorney general anywhere in the United States. This is as bad as anything. Kwame Rahul Laia, James Ron Bonta could sign. Yeah, that's right. It's our new governor, Bob Ferguson's office that did this brief. I'm going to tell you right now, Washington, that what we're going to focus on today, as we know there are two challenges to the magazine ban. There is an article one section 24 challenge, which is a challenge under the Washington State Constitution, and then there's also a separate Second Amendment challenge. We're going to focus on the state constitution today. I have always believed that Washington State's Article one section 24, our second amendment equivalent, actually provides greater protections to the individual. The Attorney general's office, of course, absolutely positively disagrees with that and wants to rely upon a case that is called Evans all the way back from 2015.
That was a pretty Bruin case, but they still believe it to be good law. Now, in a nutshell, Washington, I want you to know that essentially if their theory under the state constitution was true, they could literally disarm you of every single firearm you own. Here's why you see the state of Washington argues in this memorandum. That Article one section 24 only protects the arms that are appropriate for self-defense. So any other firearm that you may have for any other lawful purpose would not be protected by the Washington State Constitution. So your hunting rifles, your bird hunting shotguns, some of your collector firearms, some of your curios and relics and things like that that you may have inherited. Very cool. A lot of sentimental value to 'em. Some of 'em have a lot of utility use, but because none of 'em in the state's mind were designed for self-defense, then you see there's no constitutional protection of 'em at all.
And then their other theory is is that they as the state gets to determine what type of firearm is appropriate for self-defense. So understand, if you had a rule of law that there was only constitutional protections for any type of arm that the state deems appropriate for self-defense, then all a state needs to do is keep arguing that none of these are appropriate for self-defense. And that is exactly the argument that the state of Washington makes in their Article one section 24 response. The test articulated by this court has two steps. First, the court must ask whether a particular weapon or accessory is covered by Section 24, which protects instruments that are designed as weapons traditionally or commonly used by law abiding citizens for the lawful purpose of self-defense. In considering whether a weapon is a protected arm, the court must consider the weapon's purpose and intended function.
That's right. The court must consider its intended purpose of function, not the individual who is actually bearing the arm. If this step is satisfied in Article one, section 24 is implicated, then the court moves to the second step, which is grounded in the longstanding principle that the firearm rights guaranteed by the Washington Constitution are subject to reasonable regulation pursuant to the state's police power. Well, that sounds to me like interest balancing, and that's exactly what the state is arguing. They're saying, Hey, listen, you might not be able to do any interest balancing on a Second Amendment challenge, but when it comes to the state constitution, oh, no interest balancing is alive as well, don't believe me. Here's the language they used. A constitutionally reasonable regulation is one that is reasonably necessary to protect public safety or welfare and substantially related to the legitimate and sought.
That sounds an awful lot like a balancing test, but then of course, they just let the cat right out of the bag with thus, if section 24 is implicated, the court must balance the public benefit from the regulation against the degree to which it frustrates the purpose of the constitutional provision. Gator's claim fills both prongs of Washington's constitutional test and then again, like I mentioned, they rely on this case called Evans from 2015, a knife case out of Seattle that was decided pre Bruin that basically kind of rejected Heller and indicted. The court had basically said, well, we just don't believe this particular type of knife is really meant for self-defense and therefore this individual is not protected and that's the authority that the state of Washington believes that they have here. But when I said that literally they could disarm you by taking away every firearm and you don't believe me, this is the language that the state of Washington uses in their memorandum.
Gator's claim fails at Evan's threshold step for two independent reasons. First, large capacity magazines are accessories, not arms, and are unnecessary for any firearm to function as intended. Second section 24 applies only to weapons commonly used for self-defense, which LCMS are not. So any of the hunting rifles, any of your hunting shotguns, anything that the state decides is not appropriate for self-defense is not constitutionally protected. And then what happens when they start coming out with approved lists of firearms that they believe are appropriate for self-defense that are going to be what based upon what the attorney general, what the governor, and what some judge wants. Article one section 24 is plain tax applies only to arms, but large capacity magazines are not arms. Instead, they are merely a subclass of containers for ammunition, cartridges, accessories that when added to weapons make them more capable of mass murder.
Accordingly, large capacity magazines do not come within the plain text of Section 24. So what the state of Washington essentially is arguing here, and I need you to be aware of this America, is that they believe that as long as they provide an individual with some method to defend their life, even though that method is the one that they have alone approved, then there really hasn't been a constitutional violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Senate Bill 5 0 7 8 also leaves individuals free to possess and use the large capacity magazines they already own. Senate Bill 5 0 7 8 does not meaningfully limit any individual's ability to use any type of firearm for lawful purposes. Let's all remember that when they are amending the statute to add the word possession to it, and so what the state of Washington is trying to do is just cherry pick and say, Hey, we're the state and we get to decide what's appropriate for self-defense.
I mean, they literally put in their memorandum to be sure some type of magazine may be required for some firearms to operate, but a large capacity magazine never is. What else the state of Washington believes is that while some magazines are necessary for some firearms to function properly, which is exactly the case, they still as the state get to decide what those magazines are and which firearms can actually function. The Superior Court ignored this distinction seemingly reasoning that if magazines as a class are necessary components of some firearms, then all magazines must necessarily be protected. In other words, the court committed the logical fallacy of assuming that if a broader category of something is constitutional, then the smaller parts within it must also be constitutional. That is actually what they put in their memorandum. I want you to understand what they just put in their memorandum.
Read this again. In other words, the court committed the logical fallacy of assuming that if a broader category of something is constitutional, then the smaller parts within it must also be constitutional. Yeah, that's how plain English and common sense works. Now, they believe that the only arms that are protected are the ones that are appropriate for self-defense, and then they believe they also have the authority to determine what's appropriate for self-defense. They put in their memorandum. The following Gator's claim also fails at the threshold because Section 24 only covers arms that are traditionally and commonly used for self-defense. Large capacity magazines, undeniably serve combat functions, not self-defense functions. They are designed to enhance a shooter's capacity to shoot multiple human targets very rapidly, a consequently and uniquely military function, unless of course you're being encountered by multiple attackers, but hey, the state knows more about how you should be defending your life.
Ultimately, the state comes to this very bold statement because large capacity magazines are designed to enable shooters to kill as many enemies in combat as possible. They have virtually no utility for self-defense. How do they come to that conclusion? Oh yeah, that's right. They're relying on the biggest hack in the business for an expert Lucy p Allen. And I will point out that even though Lucy p Allen's original study said that only 2.3 shots were used in a self-defense situation, the state of Washington now believes it actually to only be 2.2. So California heads up because the next time you see this mention in a memorandum there, it's probably going to be about down to 2.0 in Illinois by the time it comes around to you, probably about 1.9, 1.8. So because Washington State and the nine justices at the Supreme Court and the Attorney General and our state legislature are all now certified firearm experts, they get to tell you what you can and cannot use to defend your life and that of your loved ones as they point out.
In short, under a straightforward reading of this court's precedent, large capacity magazines do not come within Article one, section 24 because they are not weapons traditionally or commonly used for self-defense. And of course, one of the other big reasons they want the court to adopt that position is because it allows them to completely ignore the common use argument because there could be millions and millions of these lawfully possessed in Washington state, but if the state of Washington believes that they're inappropriate for self-defense, then they are not constitutionally protected. This is an absolutely infuriating list of arguments in a long list of infuriating arguments that I haven't gotten all the way through yet. The case once again is State of Washington verse Gator's guns. It is set for oral argument before the Washington State Supreme Court on January 14th. We're going to link up their memorandum below so that you can geek out on it for yourself.
If you got any questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights here in Washington, which is not much. You should know how to get ahold of Washington gun law by now, but if you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. If you've got an idea for a video we should be doing around here, tell us all about it by clicking on that link right there. If you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter, the ability to do all that is right down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, lets everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner. Like we talk about all the time here, to know what the law is in every situation. It applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law