Latest news with #Bruen
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
We Analyzed Every Gun Case Since Bruen. The Result Is Horrifying.
This story was published in partnership with the Trace, a nonprofit newsroom covering gun violence in America. Sign up for its newsletter here. On Jan. 29, in a federal courtroom in Mississippi, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves delivered a ruling that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable: He found the decades-old federal ban on machine guns unconstitutional. At the center of the case was a firearm that seemed designed to provoke: an AR-15-style rifle named the 'NFA Whore, Whore-16.' It had a switch that allowed its user to select between three modes of fire: 'MARY' for safe, 'SLUT' for semiautomatic, and 'WHORE' for fully automatic machine gun. The defendant was also accused of illegally possessing 20 Glock 'switches'—devices that convert pistols to automatic fire—and more than 400 rounds of ammunition. But Reeves made clear that his decision had little to do with the weapon's offensive branding or the intensifying public safety threat posed by automatic weapons. He said his hands were tied by the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upended Second Amendment law. Bruen mandated that modern gun regulations align with historical firearms regulations. Suddenly, judges were less arbiters of modern safety and more reluctant antiquarians, tasked with finding 18th- or 19th-century parallels for today's gun laws. While the Justice Department is appealing Reeves' ruling, it is among a growing number of decisions striking down gun laws in the post-Bruen era. At least three rulings in the past year have invalidated federal restrictions on machine guns, once considered settled law. Bruen has also imperiled concealed carry laws, assault weapons bans, and a host of other gun restrictions. A Trace analysis of more than 2,000 challenges to gun laws since Bruen found that a case's outcome now hinges on conflicting interpretations of America's complex and often uncomfortable past. As judges, lawyers, and historians argue over what history counts and what it means, gun rights groups have capitalized on the confusion—with sweeping consequences for public safety. President Donald Trump's return to the White House has increased the chances of more gun restrictions being tossed out. The president has ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to reassess how the Justice Department handles legal challenges to federal gun laws—a move that could lead the administration to stop defending them altogether. In April, the Justice Department asked a court for more time to decide whether it would defend the ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. More recently, the department settled a lawsuit over forced-reset triggers, in the process allowing the sale of aftermarket devices that boost a semiautomatic rifle's rate of fire. Many judges have openly admitted they're not equipped to evaluate whether centuries-old statutes match modern-day restrictions. Eric Segall, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University College of Law, said judges' lack of expertise is evident in their rulings. 'There are a thousand decisions going in all directions because history is not reliable in the hands of qualified historians, much less in the hands of unqualified historians,' Segall said. 'None of them should be doing history in any meaningful sense of the word.' Meanwhile, Bruen's real-world effects are becoming increasingly stark. In January, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a federal age restriction on handgun sales, allowing gun stores in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to sell pistols to teenagers with little fear of prosecution. At least two other appeals courts have thrown out age restrictions on guns in the past year. On April 21, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case concerning Minnesota's ban on 18- to 20-year-olds obtaining permits to carry concealed handguns in public. The move let stand an appeals court decision striking down the ban. Within days, the sheriff in Minnesota's most populous county, home to Minneapolis, opened concealed carry permit applications to 18-year-olds. Other courts have upheld similar laws. A 10th Circuit panel backed a Colorado age restriction last November, and earlier this year, the 11th Circuit upheld Florida's ban on gun sales to people under 21. In Reeves' courtroom, prosecutors argued that machine guns are not constitutionally protected because they are 'dangerous and unusual.' Reeves, concluding that Bruen had rendered such thinking 'obsolete,' ruled that prosecutors had failed to present a convincing historical analogue from the Founding era to justify banning the defendant from possessing a machine gun in his home. But in dismissing the charge, Reeves didn't hold back from criticizing the selective and superficial use of historical evidence under Bruen. 'The ultimate irony is that the version of history endorsed in these (and other) decisions has itself been deemed untrustworthy by actual historians,' he wrote. 'The experts don't think lawyers and judges have gotten it right.' When deciding whether a gun law passes muster under Bruen, judges must choose which historical period to compare it to. Is it the late 18th century, when the Second Amendment was ratified? Or the post–Civil War period, when the Bill of Rights was applied to the states? The Supreme Court offered little advice, and while lower courts have cited both, most judges have prioritized the Founding era. Gun rights groups frequently call on courts to exclude other time periods. That's because there were fewer regulations—at least regulations written down as statute—compared to the latter half of the 1800s, leaving fewer historical analogues to pick from. Focusing on the Founding era also ignores crucial legal developments in the intervening decades. Saul Cornell, a Fordham University history professor who has served as an expert in dozens of post-Bruen gun cases, said more people go through Times Square each day in 2025 than lived in the state of New York in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. 'It's not surprising they weren't much concerned about gun violence in the 18th century,' he said. The 19th century, on the other hand, marked a pivotal transformation in firearms technology, with the advent of guns that let users reliably fire multiple rounds without reloading and more affordable, dependable, and concealable pistols, famously exemplified by Samuel Colt's revolvers. The proliferation of these guns in American life, particularly from the 1830s onward, coincided with a rise in social problems and interpersonal violence. In response, states and localities enacted tougher regulations. 'There is a tradition of firearms regulation in the United States,' said Brian DeLay, a University of California, Berkeley, historian who has also been an expert witness in post-Bruen cases. 'And its basic dynamic is that when there is technological change that is robust and practical enough to actually generate social consequences, it is met with regulation. It happens over and over and over again.' Still, Bruen requires courts to compare regulations designed for a time of agrarian communities and muzzle-loading muskets to laws addressing densely populated metropolises and semiautomatic rifles. 'The founders did not inhabit a world where a disgruntled 18-year-old could go and kill a couple dozen people in six or seven minutes,' DeLay said. Beyond the era, judges must also decide what kinds of historical sources should carry weight. Are only state legislative statutes relevant? What about common law practices, local ordinances, and territorial laws? In upholding the gun ban on people convicted of felonies, one federal judge in Illinois pointed to 18th-century manuals that instructed constables to seize weapons from the 'dangerous' or 'disaffected.' Even though those manuals predate the Second Amendment—and weren't written down as statute—the judge concluded that they reflect a longstanding principle of keeping guns away from people the government considered untrustworthy. For lawyers and researchers, identifying and verifying sources is difficult and time-consuming, requiring expertise and access to expensive legal databases that, while extensive, don't necessarily include all of the historical state statutes. As a result, governments defending gun laws are sometimes forced to start from scratch, hiring historians to build records on issues that haven't been deeply researched. 'There's tons of stuff that we haven't figured out yet,' DeLay said. Governments that forego hiring historians often end up relying on statutes born of bias. In an Illinois case in 2025, prosecutors defending the gun ban on people with felony convictions pointed to Founding era laws disarming Catholics who refused loyalty oaths, Colonial and Antebellum statutes barring enslaved and free Black people from owning guns, and 18th-century punishments for felonies that ranged from estate forfeiture to execution. 'Undoubtedly, today the disarmament of religious minorities would be understood as abhorrent, reprehensible, and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause—as would the categorical disarmament of Blacks and Native Americans, another practice pervasive in our country's historical tradition,' the prosecutors wrote. 'But, considered solely for the limited purpose of the historical inquiry required by Bruen, these laws nonetheless 'reveal conclusively the scope of governmental power that was understood to exist at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.' ' The Trace's review of post-Bruen challenges found more than 1,000 rulings in which judges compared a modern gun law to statutes from the past. Of those, nearly a third—more than 300—featured federal, state, and local governments citing discriminatory statutes. (The other cases we reviewed didn't include a historical analysis because the judges relied on precedent to make their decisions or otherwise determined that an analysis was unnecessary.) Governments that rely on discriminatory statutes are often successful. In 2023, a U.S. district judge in Illinois, Franklin Valderrama, upheld the gun ban on people with felony convictions even as he acknowledged the moral discomfort he felt by relying on such invidious parallels. 'As other district courts have pointed out, many of the historical laws cited by the Government are deplorable and certainly would not survive a constitutional challenge today,' he wrote. 'But, under Bruen, courts must examine historical analogues, and 'laws disarming enslaved people, religious minorities, and Native Americans—however repulsive to modern sensibilities—fit that bill.' ' Historians say the government may be relying on discriminatory statutes because its attorneys don't have a full understanding of the history. 'Those sources are relatively easy to find, that's one reason,' said Cornell, the Fordham University history professor. 'If states and localities don't hire historians, they go to those.' Gun statutes with discriminatory elements are more well-known, in part, because gun rights advocates have long pointed to them to argue that gun control is inherently racist, historians said. But research conducted by Robert Spitzer, a professor at the State University of New York at Cortland and a frequent expert in Bruen cases, found that race-based laws represent only a small minority of the thousands of gun laws enacted throughout American history. While important for understanding the role of firearms in racial politics, most historical gun laws did not explicitly address race or slavery but a wide range of issues, from public safety to militia regulation and commercial sales. 'You cannot dismiss old weapons laws by saying, 'Well, they were all based on race animus,' ' Spitzer told The Trace. 'It's just actually false.' Bruen has also created an asymmetric battlefield. Because the government bears the burden of justifying its restrictions—and good historical research is expensive—well-funded gun rights groups have a leg up. The Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the gun industry's trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have participated in at least 61 cases challenging gun laws under Bruen, the Trace found. Of those cases, nearly half—29—resulted in a ruling finding a gun restriction unconstitutional. Legal wins for gun rights groups used to be far less frequent. 'The gun industry has a clear interest in selling more firearms, which is easier and cheaper if there's deregulation,' said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director at the gun reform group Giffords. Since Bruen, it has become 'less burdensome for them to file all these cases all over the country and then basically point to the government to raise this heavy burden of historical presentation,' she said. The imbalance in resources often results in judges having to weigh competing interpretations of history—one produced by academics, and the other by gun rights groups' experts. In many cases, government-hired historians are forced to defend their methods under adversarial cross-examination. Judges are increasingly aware of the challenge. 'The inexorable result of such a methodology will likely be, in this and other cases, an analytical product consisting of the best guesswork of a judge-turned-amateur-historian,' U.S. District Judge Sarah Geraghty wrote in 2023, upholding an indictment against a Georgia man accused of illegal gun possession. The Supreme Court seemed to confront the limitations of a strict historical approach in United States v. Rahimi, last year's challenge to a federal law disarming people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The 18th century offered no direct parallel to the law—domestic violence was hardly recognized as a crime then. The court, in an 8–1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the law anyway, deciding that judges should consider the principles behind a regulation rather than requiring exact matches from a bygone era. Some legal experts hoped the ruling would clean up the confusion surrounding Bruen. But Sanchez-Gomez said Rahimi spawned a whole new level of ambiguity. Even with the shift toward historical principles, lower courts must now wrestle with how broadly or narrowly to define those principles when comparing them to modern gun laws. The outcome has been conflicting rulings on similar laws across the country. Appeals courts continue to split on laws involving age restrictions, felons, and limits on specific types of firearms and accessories. Though the Supreme Court has turned down several gun cases this year, these divisions make it highly probable that the justices will eventually be forced to take up more Second Amendment cases. Given the court's 6–3 conservative majority, more gun laws are likely to be struck down. But some experts see a potential, albeit ironic, long-term benefit of Bruen. The act of forcing governments and legal teams to dig deep into the historical record is generating a wealth of new research on firearm regulation. DeLay, the Berkeley historian, believes this work may ultimately call the Supreme Court's historical reasoning in Bruen into question. 'This renewed emphasis on history, text, and tradition is ultimately going to undermine the current contemporary foundations of Second Amendment jurisprudence,' he said. The picture of the nation's regulatory tradition that is emerging, he said, 'is not friendly to the gun rights interpretation of this history.'
USA Today
02-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines The court declined to hear challenges to Maryland's ban on AR-15s and Rhode Island's ban on powerful firearm magazines. Show Caption Hide Caption Mexico takes on American gun companies at Supreme Court Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism as Mexico attempted to hold American gun companies responsible for drug cartel violence. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 2 preserved Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines, declining to decide if they meet the high court's controversial bar for gun restrictions. To not violate the 2nd Amendment, the court said in 2022, a restriction must be grounded in historic tradition. Lower courts have been struggling to apply this standard. Gun rights advocates challenging Maryland's ban said it doesn't pass that test because AR-15s are one of the nation's most popular weapons, proof that there's a history of allowing them. Maryland argues the ban is constitutional because the nation has long regulated exceptionally dangerous weapons. But even some of the lower court judges who agreed the ban doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment said they need more guidance from the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the high court's 2022 ruling 'has proven to be a labyrinth for lower courts, including our own, with only the one-dimensional history-and-tradition test as a compass.' Tasked with 'shifting through the sands of time,' Diaz wrote in a concurring opinion, lower courts 'are asking for help.' The Supreme Court's most recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment – a 2024 decision upholding a gun control law intended to protect victims of domestic violence – offered little clarity, he said. In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lower courts were misunderstanding their methodology. A gun regulation must have only a 'historical analogue' and not a 'historical twin' to be upheld, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. His opinion did not say how that test should be applied to regulations like Maryland's or Rhode Island's. Maryland banned AR-15s after Sandy Hook shooting Maryland passed its ban after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one of the deadliest school shootings in the nation's history. The law prohibits dozens of firearms including the AK-47s and certain AR-15s. Nine other states, the District of Columbia, and various cities have also restricted assault weapons. The appeals court upheld Maryland's ban in 2017. But after the Supreme Court set the historical tradition test in its 2022 decision known as Bruen, the justices directed the appeals court to reconsider its ruling. Writing for the majority, 4th U.S. Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, said the ban 'fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' 'Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing,' he wrote. Gun rights groups said that if Maryland is allowed to ban 'the most popular rifle in the country,' then no firearm will be protected from regulation except handguns that were at the center of the court's 2008 decision expanding gun rights. In that decision, known as Heller, the court said those rights do have limits – which are guided by the nation's tradition of banning 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' While Maryland focuses on the 'dangerous' aspect of AR-15s, gun rights advocates say the weapon's popularity shows AR-15s are not 'unusual.' Rhode Island made it a felony to have a large-capacity magazine Rhode Island, in 2022, made it a felony to have a firearm magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Four gun owners and a gun store challenged the ban, arguing the state is thumbing its nose at the court's 2022 decision. A federal district judge declined to put the ban on hold, saying the challenge was unlikely to succeed. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. A three-judge panel wrote that the ban doesn't burden the right to self-defense because a large-capacity magazines are not necessary outside 'Hollywood-inspired scenarios in which a homeowner would need to fend off a platoon of well-armed assailants without having to swap out magazines.' The court also said the ban is consistent with past restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons used mostly for crime and mass violence such as sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and Bowie knives. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha told the Supreme Court it did not need to get involved at this stage as the record is still being developed while the challenge continues. The ban, Neronha wrote in a filing, 'imposes a relatively mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapon accessory.'
Epoch Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Gun Ban for Non-Violent Felons
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Constitution allows laws barring felons from owning guns, even if their past crimes were non-violent—finding such restrictions consistent with the nation's historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous or lawbreaking. In a The 11-judge en banc panel rejected a Second Amendment challenge brought by Steven Duarte, a California man with multiple felony convictions. Duarte was arrested after a traffic stop in 2020 and convicted of illegally possessing a handgun. Duarte argued that the federal law shouldn't apply to non-violent offenders like him under the Bruen framework, which requires modern gun laws to be rooted in the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The majority of the court disagreed, however, writing that 'felon-in-possession laws, like § 922(g)(1), are presumptively constitutional,' and that early American legislatures had broad authority to disarm those who broke the law, regardless of whether their offenses involved violence. 'Certainly, if the greater punishment of death and estate forfeiture was permissible to punish felons, then the lesser restriction of permanent disarmament is also permissible,' the court majority wrote, adding that 'legislatures could disarm on a categorical basis those who present a 'special danger of misuse' of firearms.' Related Stories 4/10/2025 5/9/2025 In dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke criticized the majority for what he called an overly broad interpretation of legislative authority, warning that their reasoning gives lawmakers 'unilateral discretion to disarm anyone by assigning the label 'felon' to whatever conduct they desire.' VanDyke argued that, under Bruen, the government must do more than merely point to a person's criminal record, adding that in his view, the majority incorrectly and over-broadly concluded that 'legislatures can disarm entire classes of individuals, even absent a specific showing of individual dangerousness or propensity to violence.' The decision underscores an ongoing divide in the federal courts over the reach of Bruen and which modern gun restrictions can survive the Supreme Court's renewed emphasis on historical tradition. A request for comment on the ruling sent to the office of the public defender representing Duarte was not immediately returned. In September 2024, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association filed a joint amicus brief in the case in support of Duarte. While acknowledging that American history supports disarming those who pose a threat or have shown a proclivity for violence, the groups argued there is no historical basis for permanently disarming individuals who have committed only non-violent crimes. 'It is unconstitutional and immoral for the government to forever disarm people like Mr. Duarte, who committed a non-violent crime, served his time, and successfully reentered society,' FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement at the time. 'We will continue to fight to eliminate gun control laws like the one at issue in this case and restore the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable people.' Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit's ruling could influence how lower courts evaluate other firearm restrictions under Bruen's test, including those targeting drug users, domestic violence defendants, and individuals with a history of mental health issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to directly address the constitutionality of firearm bans for non-violent felons. It may eventually be forced to, after ordering a lower court in March to reconsider a similar case—Morrissette v. United States—in light of its 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi. In that 8–1 decision, the justices upheld the disarmament of individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, finding such restrictions consistent with historical laws targeting those who pose a credible threat to public safety.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Yahoo
US appeals court upholds federal ban on felons owning guns
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld a federal law preventing felons from possessing firearms, rejecting a challenge by a California man who said the ban should not apply to non-violent felons like himself. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California said the government showed the "permanent and categorical disarmament" of felons was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearms regulation, and with the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said the ban helps protect from the public from people who commit "the most serious crimes" and represent a "special danger of misuse." The law was challenged by Steven Duarte, who had five convictions for nonviolent crimes, including vandalism and evading police, before being convicted and sentenced to 4-1/4 years in prison for violating the firearms ban. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor a federal public defender representing Duarte immediately responded to requests for comment. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS Friday's decision was issued by an 11-judge panel as courts around the country struggle to apply two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing Americans' right to bear arms. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court in 2022 expanded Americans' 2nd Amendment rights to arm themselves in public, and required courts to look for historical analogues to justify new gun restrictions. Two years later, in U.S. v. Rahimi, the court limited the Bruen decision by saying a "historical twin" wasn't required, as upholding a federal ban on gun ownership by people subject to restraining orders for domestic violence. Duarte had been a passenger in a red Infiniti that Inglewood, California, police pulled over in March 2020 for running a stop sign. Police saw him throw a handgun out the window, and while searching the car's interior found a loaded magazine that fit the handgun "perfectly." A three-judge 9th Circuit panel struck down the firearms ban as applied to Duarte and threw out his conviction last May, before the Rahimi case was decided. Friday's decision overturned that ruling. 'RED-HEADED STEPCHILD' Wardlaw said five federal appeals courts have upheld the firearms ban as applied to all felons, while two have found it might be unconstitutional as to some felons. In contrast, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in December found it unconstitutional as to a man who pleaded guilty to making a false statement to obtain food stamps. All 11 judges in Friday's decision voted to uphold Duarte's conviction, though three did so on procedural grounds. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a vocal critic of recent 9th Circuit gun control rulings, dissented from the court's constitutional analysis. He said the court is giving legislatures "effectively unconstrained authority to disarm entire swaths of our citizenry," while leaving the 2nd Amendment "inarguably the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution." The case is U.S. v. Duarte, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-50048.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WA State Supreme Court upholds ban on high-capacity ammo magazine sales
The sale of firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will remain banned in Washington state under a 2022 law that the state Supreme Court upheld in a May 8, 2025 ruling. (Photo by) The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's ban on the sale of gun ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The law, passed in 2022, faced a challenge from a Kelso gun shop that argued the ban on selling the magazines violates the state constitution, which protects 'the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state.' Gator's Custom Guns also said the law ran afoul of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a 7-2 ruling, state Supreme Court justices disagreed. They ruled that high-capacity magazines aren't 'arms,' but just a component of a gun, and are not generally used for self-defense. The ruling tracked with arguments attorneys for the state made before the court in January. '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,' Justice Charles Johnson wrote in Thursday's 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.' Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener dissented. Attorneys for Gator's Custom Guns, including former Republican attorney general candidate Pete Serrano, had argued that the popularity of high-capacity magazines inherently proved they abide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling protecting firearms that are 'in common use' and are 'typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.' The case was a test of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that moved the goalposts when it comes to assessing the constitutionality of gun regulations. Washington's ban on high-capacity magazine sales took effect about two and a half years ago. The state is among at least 14 nationwide with similar restrictions. These laws have attracted lawsuits as lower courts grapple with the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled state firearm laws must stay true to the nation's 'historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Judges have now had to deduce how laws written over a century ago would square with technological advances, like high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons. In this case, attorneys for the gun shop argued justices have no historical analogue to compare with Washington's high-capacity magazine law. But the state attorney general's office, led by Solicitor General Noah Purcell, countered that the comparison need not be so specific, pointing to Bowie knives banned after they rose in popularity in the 1800s. The U.S. Supreme Court has since clarified its decision in Bruen to note judges can use general principles, not just exact matches, when comparing modern gun laws to historical regulations. The ruling comes about four months after attorneys from both sides argued before the justices about the law's standing under the U.S. and state constitutions. The case came to the state Supreme Court after a Cowlitz County Superior Court judge struck down the ban in April 2024. The judge, Gary Bashor, ruled the law violated the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms for self-defense granted in the state constitution. That ruling had been paused until the case was resolved, so the ban has remained in effect. The case now returns to Cowlitz County Superior Court to decide if Gator's violated state law in allegedly flouting the prohibition. This year, Washington lawmakers passed another controversial gun control measure to force firearm buyers to get a state permit before purchasing a gun. Republicans uniformly opposed the bill, with some arguing judges would deem it unconstitutional under Bruen. That legislation now awaits Gov. Bob Ferguson's signature. This is a developing story and will be updated. State of Washington v. Gator's Custom Guns - May 8, 2025 Opinion The May 8, 2025, Washington state Supreme Court opinion in State of Washington v. Gator's Custom Guns, Inc.
