Wash State mag ban case, Gator's Guns update

[Racer X]

On a recent Washington Gun Law video, Bill mentioned that Gator's IS seeking cert from SCOTUS, maybe even filing this week. Bill looked over a draft of the cert filing.

This is WA State lawsuit, and it did predictably get upheld by state Supreme Court. There was a 2A challenge, so if SCOTUS hears it and rules, it's a nationwide precedent.

As soon as it gets filed, I'll try and post it.

 

[Muss Muggins]

On a recent Washington Gun Law video, Bill mentioned that Gator's IS seeking cert from SCOTUS, maybe even filing this week. Bill looked over a draft of the cert filing.

This is WA State lawsuit, and it did predictably get upheld by state Supreme Court. There was a 2A challenge, so if SCOTUS hears it and rules, it's a nationwide precedent.

As soon as it gets filed, I'll try and post it.

Doesn't look like they are taking up a circuit split. What if SCOTUS sends back a narrowly ruled decision applying only to the issue at bar in the circuit at bar? Is it still nationwide precedent?

 

[Racer X]

If they rule on the 2A claim, it "should" apply nationwide? CA ban will be filing for cert within a month. They just got a 1 month extension for the filing. And the DOJ just filed an Amicus brief in support of the plaintifs in Illinois. DOJ says magazines are "arms" and protected by the 2A. This is at the 7th Circuit level, awaiting oral arguments.

So the DOJ Amicus brief will be tacked on to the CA filing I would imagine, and possibly on the WA State suit as well.

AR/AK, magazines and supressors all protected

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1403731/dl?inline

 

[fordson]

I’m still interested in what, if anything, the DOJ 2A Task Force is doing in “fighting” these state rulings.

 

[Racer X]

This sounds like it might have come through them. They could knock out a whole slew of cases. There is also a much greater likelihood of SCOTUS granting cert if the federal government formally requests SCOTUS to hear a case and lays out why.

 

[Mainsail]

The ironic thing is the WA constitution is more plain the the US Constitution, so there's no alleged preamble loopholes or anything:

1, § 24. Right to Bear Arms. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

So telling me I cannot own the mags the gun ships with is absolutely an impairment. I have to wonder what sort of linguistic gymnastics the judge used to find the mag ban constitutional.

 

[Racer X]

It has nothing to do with linguistic gymnastics. All it takes are judges willing to ignore the law. If you can't be fired, doing your job poorly by way of flexible integrity is easy. Those that protest the most are likely the most flexible. Those with scrupulous character are usually pretty quietly doing their jobs properly with little notice.