Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Petitioner urges Supreme Court to apply vested-rights rule to firearm-restoration statute
Summary
At oral arguments in Ahrens v. State of Washington, petitioner’s counsel argued that previously vested rights — including an earlier venue provision — should prevent application of a 2023 amendment to Washington’s firearm-restoration statute; the state countered that the amendment prioritizes victim participation and public safety.
At oral argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for petitioner Darren Lee Ahrens argued that the Court of Appeals erred by applying legislative-intent analysis instead of the established vested-rights framework and that the petitioner’s rights vested under the earlier statute, including the venue provision.
"A vested-rights analysis asks, does the statute operate prospectively or retrospectively?" said Vitali Kerchin, counsel for the petitioner, arguing the entire prior subsection — venue and substantive prerequisites alike — vested before the 2023 amendment took effect.
Kerchin told the court the record lacks a formal factual finding below that the petitioner met the former statute’s requirements but said the state did not contest merits in…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
