Latest news with #WashingtonStateSupremeCourt
The Hill
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Top Washington state court upholds ban on high-capacity gun magazines
The Washington State Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on high-capacity magazine guns in a Thursday ruling, overturning a lower court order that labeled it unconstitutional. The 7-2 decision affirmed the constitutionality of a three-year old state law that prevents the sale, manufacture and import of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds 'This regulation does not limit the number of bullets or magazines that may be purchased or possessed. 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 the majority's opinion about the ban. 'Thus, we are not convinced that the restriction here renders the right to bear arms in self defense meaningless,' he continued. Gator's Custom Guns Inc., a Washington for-profit corporation and Walter Wentz initiated the lawsuit against the state law, arguing that the ban violated citizens' Second Amendment rights. Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener dissented on Thursday in defense of the plaintiffs' dispute, alleging a magazine is not an optional accessory for a repeating firearm. 'It is a defining characteristic of a repeating firearm. As Gator's Custom Guns explains, 'Without a magazine inserted, a semiautomatic weapon will not function properly' and is 'essentially a single shot breech loader' like an old-fashioned musket,' Justice McCloud wrote in the dissent. 'And because the magazine functions as an ammunition feeding device, it is not just a passive receptacle for storing ammunition like a cartridge box.' McCloud, in the dissent, added that the Second Amendment does not just protect 'arms' but also 'arms-bearing conduct.' Washington Attorney General Nick Brown lauded the court's decision on Thursday, citing the threat of violent events. 'Today's decision is right on the law and will save lives,' Brown said in a prepared statement according to the Seattle Times. 'Large capacity magazines are used in the overwhelming majority of mass shootings, and reducing the toll of these senseless killings is vitally important.' Thirteen other states currently outlaw high capacity magazines.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Spokane overhauls homeless strategy after camping ban struck down by state Supreme Court
This story was originally published on The City of Spokane is overhauling its strategy regarding its homeless population after the Washington State Supreme Court struck down the city's camping ban last month. Mayor Lisa Brown announced a new comprehensive homeless plan Thursday, which includes adding housing units at all income levels, expanding home ownership, and increasing healthcare access in the city. 'We have needed a plan for years, and now we have one,' Brown said. 'Some of that is rental assistance, some of that is working with people to prevent evictions, some of that is connecting them with resources they're qualified for but they don't even know it.' The plan has been dubbed 'Home Starts Here.' Under this plan, if officials discover an encampment, the housing outreach team would have seven days to connect that unhoused person with services provided by the city, according to KXLY. If they remain after a week, police can remove the tent, but officers still would have to work to connect these people with services for housing or treatment. The City of Spokane wants to avoid homeless people 'just (moving) from one area to the next.' Proposals responding to the rejection of Proposition 1 will be discussed in upcoming city council meetings. Spokane's Proposition 1, which outlawed homeless people from setting up campsites within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and childcare facilities throughout the city, with a few designated areas established in the outskirts, was overruled by the state Supreme Court. The decision came despite approximately 75% of Spokane voters approving Prop. 1 last November. The 2018 Martin v. Boise federal court decision was cited in the decision. That case led to the ruling that cities could not criminalize a homeless person sleeping on public property unless shelter space was available. Council members Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart, who represent the conservative minority of Spokane's city leadership, claimed they were left in the dark with this decision. 'The majority loves to leave out the word majority; they do this consistently,' Cathcart told The Center Square after Brown made her announcement. 'They act as though something has been collaborated with all of the council, and it's simply not true. There was no conversation with myself.' Brown and other officials held a briefing with local media outlets last week so they could ask questions ahead of the announcement of 'Home Starts Here.' Bingle and Cathcart claimed they weren't told about this until just hours before the unveiling. 'There was absolutely a private press conference, a gaggle, whatever it is, and I don't know who all was there, but I was told it was written media,' Cathcart told The Center Square. Cathcart received an invite for a Thursday meeting and announcement of 'Home Starts Here,' but wasn't told what it was about. Bingle added that he received an invitation for the 8:30 a.m. meeting with the mayor, like the rest of the council, but claimed his invite said 9 a.m. Brown also had to leave shortly after Bingle arrived, so there wasn't much back and forth regarding the proposed overhaul. The administration and council majority 'aren't interested in working with' him or Cathcart, Bingle told The Center Square. Follow Frank Sumrall on X. Send news tips here.
Washington Post
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Seattle officers who attended Jan. 6 rally ask US Supreme Court to keep their identities anonymous
SEATTLE — Current and former Seattle police officers who attended President Donald Trump's 'Stop the Steal' political rally on Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol are asking the nation's highest court to keep their identities anonymous in public court records. Using 'John Doe' pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven't shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge.
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Seattle officers who attended Jan. 6 rally ask US Supreme Court to keep their identities anonymous
SEATTLE (AP) — Current and former Seattle police officers who attended President Donald Trump's 'Stop the Steal' political rally on Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol are asking the nation's highest court to keep their identities anonymous in public court records. Using 'John Doe' pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven't shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge. Four officers who attended events in the nation's capital on the day of an insurrection claimed they are protected under the state's public records law. They say they did nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy. In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021 events, the Seattle Police Department ordered an investigation into whether any of its officers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend the rally had violated any laws or department policies. The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair. Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled 'inconclusive.' Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, filed records requests seeking disclosure of the investigation's records for the participating officers. 'We are reviewing the Does' motion for a stay,' Neil Fox, one of the Sueoka's attorneys, said in an email to The Associated Press Saturday. Requiring the officers to use their real names in the litigation would create a chilling effect on voicing unpopular opinions, the petition to the Supreme Court said. 'At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever,' the petition said. A response to the petition is due next week on Friday.
Associated Press
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Seattle officers who attended Jan. 6 rally ask US Supreme Court to keep their identities anonymous
SEATTLE (AP) — Current and former Seattle police officers who attended President Donald Trump's 'Stop the Steal' political rally on Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol are asking the nation's highest court to keep their identities anonymous in public court records. Using 'John Doe' pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven't shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge. Four officers who attended events in the nation's capital on the day of an insurrection claimed they are protected under the state's public records law. They say they did nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy. In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021 events, the Seattle Police Department ordered an investigation into whether any of its officers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend the rally had violated any laws or department policies. The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair. Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled 'inconclusive.' Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, filed records requests seeking disclosure of the investigation's records for the participating officers. 'We are reviewing the Does' motion for a stay,' Neil Fox, one of the Sueoka's attorneys, said in an email to The Associated Press Saturday. Requiring the officers to use their real names in the litigation would create a chilling effect on voicing unpopular opinions, the petition to the Supreme Court said. 'At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever,' the petition said. A response to the petition is due next week on Friday.
