Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb1562 Second Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington Supreme Court weighs whether DUI-based gun ban requires individualized findings
Summary
At argument Jan. 29, the court heard whether a state law temporarily barring firearm possession for people with repeated DUI convictions can be upheld as a categorical regulation under Bruen and Rahimi, or whether petitioners are entitled to individualized, as-applied review.
SEATTLE — The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments over whether a state law that temporarily bars firearm possession for people with repeated driving-under-the-influence convictions must be applied only after individualized findings that a person is dangerous.
Andrew Hughes, arguing for the attorney general, told the court that HB 1562 is an evidence-based law aimed at reducing gun violence and fits “three separate historical traditions” of firearm regulation: disarming dangerous people, disarming those convicted of serious crimes, and addressing the mix of alcohol and firearms. Hughes said that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen and Rahimi framework, legislators may adopt categorical restrictions that do not require individualized findings of dangerousness.
Vitali Kirchhen, counsel for petitioners Jeffrey McClellan and Jackson Holloway, replied that the court should refuse to give the state what he called a “blank check.” Kirchhen said his clients seek the opportunity to bring as-applied challenges and argued the record before the court does not establish that the legislature’s generalized findings relieve courts of the duty to scrutinize whether the statute applies to particular individuals.
Justices repeatedly pressed both sides on the case’s procedural posture and the proper analytical lens. Several asked whether the petitioners were advancing a facial challenge to the statute or an as-applied challenge to their individual circumstances, and whether the superior court’s denial of summary or judgment-on-the-pleadings was premature without fact development. Hughes said petitioners do not contest the legislature’s findings and that those findings, supported by studies, warrant deference in this posture. Kirchhen argued that Williams, Diaz and other circuit decisions show courts should retain a role in testing whether a particular offense or offender fits within historical analogues.
The court also questioned how the Bruen historical-analogue test should treat the “how” of regulation — for example, whether past practice supports a total, multi-year disarmament with no self-defense exception. Kirchhen emphasized that the state’s reliance on historical analogues does not eliminate the possibility that some laws would run afoul of other constitutional protections or invidious classifications.
No decision was announced. The case was submitted after final arguments and the justices adjourned. The court’s eventual opinion will determine whether Washington’s temporary restriction can be applied categorically to people with multiple DUI convictions or whether individualized, as-applied process is required.
