
State supreme court upholds ban on high-capacity gun magazines
May 8—The Washington state Supreme Court has upheld a state law that bans the sale or transfer of gun ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
In a 7-2 ruling issued Thursday, the court found that the law does not violate the state or federal constitutional right to bear arms. The court found that the magazines are not classified as arms, and that the right to purchase the magazines is not "an ancillary right necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense."
The law does not prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines possessed at the time of its passage, but instead prevents the sale, transfer or import of new magazines.
"By restricting only magazines of a capacity greater than 10, the statute effectively regulates the maximum capacity of magazines, leaving the weapon fully functional for its intended purpose. Thus, we are not convinced that the restriction here renders the right to bear arms in self-defense meaningless," Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the opinion. "Indeed, we can safely say that individuals are still able to exercise the core right to bear arms when they are limited to purchasing magazines with a capacity of 10 or fewer."
In a dissent, Gordon McCloud wrote that "Millions of law-abiding people have chosen semiautomatic firearms as the primary tool for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home."
"Millions of people have chosen to feed ammunition into those commonly used firearms with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds," McCloud wrote. "It necessarily follows that the Second Amendment protects the arms-bearing conduct at issue here, that is, keeping and bearing operable semiautomatic firearms with commonly used magazines for self-defense and other lawful purposes — including in the home."
Adopted by the Washington legislature in 2022, the law was challenged by Gator's Custom Guns, a Kelso-based gun store that contended the law was unconstitutional. A Cowlitz County Superior Court judge ruled in the store's favor last June, a ruling that then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson appealed to the state Supreme Court.
In a social media post Thursday, current Attorney General Nick Brown said the decision is "right on the law and will save lives."
"Large capacity magazines are used in the overwhelming majority of mass shootings, and reducing the toll of these senseless killings is vitally important," Brown wrote. "I'm proud of my Office's work defending our state law banning the sale of these dangerous items."
In a video posted Thursday afternoon, attorney and former Washington Attorney General Candidate Pete Serrano, who represented Gator's guns in the case, said they would likely file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think this case has the tentacles the Supreme Court's been looking for," Serrano said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Kirchner's Ban From Office Marks New Chapter for Argentina
Argentina's top court sidelined former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner from elections, likely ushering in a new political era in South America's second biggest economy. Just a week after President Javier Milei's arch rival announced a bid in a key midterm race, the Supreme Court banned the opposition leader from public office for life, delivering a major political victory for Milei as he works to convince investors that Argentina is changing. The ruling forces Peronism — the country's dominant political force for decades — to reinvent itself, while leaving Milei without his most emblematic adversary in an increasingly polarized nation.

Los Angeles Times
31 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Amid fears of pending California education cuts, top Trump official says state is ‘at risk'
As concerns heighten among officials and educators about possible pending federal funding cuts to California, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said Tuesday that the state is at risk, but did not elaborate on when a decision would be made or what the cuts could be. McMahon, in a videotaped interview with Bloomberg, was responding to a question about the possible termination of grant funding to California public universities by referencing issues related to Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on gender. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to withhold unspecified federal funding from California because it allows transgender athletes to compete with cisgender athletes in girls' and women's sporting events. 'Well in California I think we saw pretty flagrant violations of Title IX,' McMahon said, 'and that is why this ... focus ... was put on them.... We have, you know, men participating in women's sports, which is clearly against Title IX, and the president has made it very clear that he is definitely going to uphold Title IX.' If the Trump administration did not 'address' violations 'as they occur then it's sort of by acquiescence that it's OK to continue and it's not,' she said. The remarks were made during a Bloomberg event in which McMahon addressed a variety of topics, including the mass Education Department layoffs under her leadership — halted by federal courts and appealed to the Supreme Court — and an ongoing battle with Harvard University. Trump has stripped billions of dollars from Harvard and tried to ban foreign-born students and the university has launched multiple lawsuits in response. Reports, including one Friday by CNN, have emerged in recent days that the Trump administration is preparing to withhold wide swaths of federal funding from the Golden State's universities, scientific researchers and K-12 schools. The California State University and University of California systems already face hundreds of millions of dollars in grant cuts from multiple federal agencies, including the Education and Health and Human Services departments. These cuts too are the subject of litigation, and some have been put on hold by the courts. The possibility of further cuts have alarmed some California legislators. In a letter sent Friday to the administration, Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) called talk of cuts 'targeted political vengeance' and said 'any significant move to cut federal funding to California would be outrageous, illegal and set a dangerous precedent. It would also have devastating impacts for our residents, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents.' He also raised a constitutional issue. 'Your withholding of funds that have been appropriated would constitute a direct attack on the separation of powers that is at the heart of our democratic republic,' Min wrote. The White House did not immediately respond to a request Tuesday related to McMahon's remarks, but in a statement Friday said that 'no final decisions' had been made on funding cuts. 'No taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country, and that's what California is doing through its lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies. The Trump administration is committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream,' the statement said. 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.' Madison Biedermann, a spokesperson for McMahon, on Tuesday affirmed the last part: No decision had been made. Biedermann said it would be incorrect to interpret McMahon's remarks as confirming imminent cuts. McMahon was restating the department's position: California is at serious risk of losing funds if it does not comply with Trump administration policies, including banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. Biedermann said any reports about the timing or extent of any cuts is, at this point, 'speculation.' To date, she said, California is under investigation but has not been penalized based on its actions. Reports of imminent — but unconfirmed — cuts have appeared in Politico and the Washington Post. Among the areas of funding potentially at risk are the so-called formula funding programs that are approved and mandated by Congress. This includes Title I dollars that the federal government provides to schools to offset the effects of poverty. These funds alone are worth about $2.1 billion a year to California and about $460 million to Los Angeles Unified, the state's largest school system, where about 80% of students have family income low enough to qualify them for a free or reduced-price lunch. Aid for school meals — totaling $363 million to L.A. Unified alone — also is a potential lever of influence for the Trump administration. These dollars are administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, outside McMahon's jurisdiction. Another potentially affected funding stream is $1.33 billion annually to offset part of the cost of educating students with disabilities — of which $177 million goes to L.A. Unified. When asked Tuesday about withholding formula funding, McMahon again raised the issue of Title IX compliance. 'I think that is part of what we found with the state of California just blatantly refusing to be in compliance with Title IX regulations,' McMahon said. 'So that is one of the tools and the other options that we have with California and I think it's right that we make them aware that that is a risk that they run.' California officials have defended their policy as consistent with state and federal law, prioritizing rights based on gender identity. California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law. Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), chair of the California State Assembly's Education Committee, told The Times that he has kept a close eye on the Trump administration's attacks on public education. 'We know that the hardest hit would be our students with special needs and our disabled students,' he said. 'Also, Title I funding for our low-income students is a big concern.' Muratsuchi said that California's 'best defense' against Trump's actions 'is our Constitution and the rule of law.... The president should not have a unilateral power to cut funding appropriated by Congress.' Muratsuchi also stressed the importance of federal funding to the UC and CSU systems. 'To have the federal research funds cut is tremendously impactful,' he said. The Times' Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas corrections panel OKs design firms for new prison; next step legislative approval
From left, Arkansas Division of Correction Director Dexter Payne, Board of Corrections Chairman Benny Magness and Corrections Secretary Lindsay Wallace listen Thursday, Nov. 7, 2024, to questions about the state's purchase of land for a new 3,000-bed prison near Charleston, Arkansas. (Photo by Antoinette Grajeda/Arkansas Advocate) Arkansas' prison oversight board on Tuesday unanimously approved a contract with two architectural engineering firms to design a planned state prison. The state Board of Corrections gave preliminary approval in May to the $57 million contract with Omaha, Neb.-based HDR and Little Rock-based Cromwell Architects Engineers, but held off formal approval until Tuesday's special-call meeting because some members had questions. The Arkansas Legislative Council, which is scheduled to meet June 20, must give final approval. The contract does not specify where the prison will be built, and board Chairman Benny Magness emphasized the lack of specificity. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her legislative leaders have said the state intends to build a 3,000-bed prison on 815 acres in Franklin County. That decision rankled some lawmakers and local officials who said they hadn't been consulted on the site choice, and lawmakers opposed to the location helped kill a bill this spring that would have appropriated $750 million toward the proposed prison. Board member Lee Watson, who had asked for the delay in approval of the design contract, said his concerns had been addressed. He'd wanted to know whether the architects would have the ability 'to scale as needed depending on what the Legislature budgets for us,' he said. In May, he asked whether the contract would allow for the possibility of another location and whether it would allow for construction of the facility in stages. Luann Salado, project manager for the board's construction manager, Vanir Construction Management, said in May that the aim is to prepare a design that would 'at least let you understand what it would cost to do — what 3,000 beds would look like, and then allow the state to choose how much [it's] actually going to build based on how much is actually appropriated to use to build. But we have to start somewhere.' 'You absolutely will have to do this in stages. That is the approach,' she said. The prison board hired Vanir last October, before Sanders announced the state's purchase of the Franklin County prison site. The board chose the two design firms in April and chose the partnership of Nabholz Construction of Conway and J.E. Dunn Construction of Kansas City, Missouri, as the general contractor for the prison in May. Watson asked Corrections Department Chief Financial Officer Chad Brown at the May meeting if it would be 'kosher within our budgeting process' to pay for the full design. Arkansas Legislature concludes 2025 legislative session; conflict over planned prison continues Brown said the contract will be a 'pay as we go' arrangement as long as the total payment remains under an 'authority dollar amount.' The contract allows the state to withdraw from it with seven days' notice. Some of the local frustration over the 815 acres of Franklin County land for the prison comes from the Indigenous Chickamauga Nation, which has said the project could have a negative impact on its burial sites in the area. The HDR/Cromwell contract has a clause that states the Board of Corrections will 'appropriately adjust' if anything in the project will 'materially change,' Corrections Secretary Lindsay Wallace said. This story uses information previously reported by the Advocate's Tess Vrbin.