Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(117,308 posts)
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 02:47 PM 10 hrs ago

State and gun shop clash at WA Supreme Court over high-capacity magazine ban

The fate of Washington’s ban on the sale of high-capacity firearm magazines now rests with the state Supreme Court.

On Tuesday morning, attorneys for the state and a southwest Washington gun shop challenging the law made their cases to the justices.

Lawyers for Gator’s Custom Guns argued the ban on selling magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds violates the clause of the state constitution that protects “the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state.”

-snip-

On the other side, lawyers from the state attorney general’s office argued the prohibition should stand because these magazines aren’t necessary for a gun to work. Since they are accessories, the ban doesn’t violate the state or federal constitutions, they argued.

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/01/14/state-and-gun-shop-clash-at-wa-supreme-court-over-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
State and gun shop clash at WA Supreme Court over high-capacity magazine ban (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin 10 hrs ago OP
Will they be going only to a well regulated military unit so that they dont get into Karadeniz 5 hrs ago #1

Karadeniz

(23,634 posts)
1. Will they be going only to a well regulated military unit so that they dont get into
Thu Jan 16, 2025, 07:58 PM
5 hrs ago

the hands of non well regulated military hands? Once again, lawyers evade the intent of the 2A and try to make irrelevant loopholes seem pertinent. Does armed citizenry, not part of an official well regulated military group, sound like what the constitution allows? No. Every state who has legalized carrying around concealed weapons is in unconstitutional territory...no supervision or regulation whatsoever. How was the clear intent of the 2 A, which is no longer needed due to the creation of armed forces, so violated by SCOTUS?

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Washington»State and gun shop clash ...