Washington Supreme Court hears challenge to ban on future sales of large-capacity magazines

The Washington Supreme Court heard argument Jan. 14 in State v. Gators Custom Guns over the constitutionality of Senate Bill 5,078, which would bar future sales and transfers of large-capacity magazines (those that hold more than 10 rounds). Noah Purcell, arguing for the state, said the law does not strip current owners of possession but advances public safety and fits within the court’s precedents allowing regulation of particularly dangerous weapons.

"Nothing in Washington's constitution or the Second Amendment requires states to allow the sale of firearm accessories that have virtually no utility for self defense and instead are routinely used in mass shootings," Purcell told the justices, urging the court to uphold the statute and follow appellate decisions that have sustained similar limits.

Purcell framed the dispute around two questions: whether magazines are "arms" within the meaning of state or federal constitutional text, and, if so, whether restrictions survive the applicable level of review. He argued that, even if a magazine were treated as an "arm," the record contains no evidence that large-capacity magazines are commonly used for self defense and that the legislature made factual findings supporting reasonable regulation to protect public safety.

Opposing counsel Austin Hatcher told the court the Washington Constitution "plainly guarantees an individual right to bear arms," and he urged a broader interpretation that would treat magazines as integral components of firearms. Hatcher said a magazine is essential to the functioning of semiautomatic weapons and that widespread ownership and lawful uses weigh against removing those components from constitutional protection.

Justices focused their questions on the proper test and level of generality for historical analogues. Several asked whether courts should assess "common use for self defense" or instead examine broader patterns of ownership and lawful purpose. Counsel debated lines between products that are historically regulated (for example, trap guns or Bowie knives) and modern accessories, with the bench probing whether and how historical traditions should guide review of new technologies.

A Justice pressed the practical effect of the statute, and Purcell confirmed that the law "does not prohibit the continued possession of large capacity magazines by people who already own them" and instead restricts future sales and transfers, with limited exceptions such as sales to licensed dealers who may sell out of state.

Counsel also disputed which scrutiny the court should apply. Hatcher argued for stricter scrutiny given the fundamental nature of the right; Purcell cited Washington precedents and federal appellate decisions he said permit deference to legislative findings about particularly dangerous weapons. Both sides invoked precedent, including Jorgensen, Bruen/Bruin-era authorities, Rahimi, Heller and several federal appellate cases discussed in the argument.

Purcell reserved five minutes of rebuttal and asked the court to uphold ESSB 5,078 and remand consumer-protection claims to a lower court for further consideration. After thanking counsel and the court’s questions, the justices submitted the case for decision and adjourned.

The court did not announce a ruling. The case is submitted; further briefing or a written opinion may follow before the court issues a decision.