This time the target is Washington state’s House Bill 1240, which bans the manufacture, sale, purchase, and transfer of so-called “assault weapons.”
Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed the measure into law on April 25, and it took effect immediately.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition joined a wide array of others, including three private citizens, to challenge this ill-conceived law.
The 21-page motion asserts “there is no possible justification for Washington’s unconstitutional ban…Not only are they likely to succeed on the merits, but the threatened constitution violation of Plaintiff’s right to acquire firearms and to supply their customers with the same, would be irreparable if it were to occur, and public interest also favors the injunction of unconstitutional laws.”
Defendants in Hartford v. Ferguson include Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and State Patrol Chief John Batiste. This initial lawsuit also names the sheriffs and prosecuting attorneys from four counties in their official capacities.
The motion for a preliminary injunction immediately followed the filing of a civil rights lawsuit by SAF and others against Ferguson and three of his staff members. As SAF founder Alan Gottlieb explained in a prepared statement, the Evergreen State has a long tradition of private citizens legally owning these popular sporting rifles.
Because of the widespread use of these semiautomatic weapons, Gottlieb explained that “we believe this ban is wholly unconstitutional, and as such, we’re asking the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the law, to prevent Washington citizens from being penalized by an unjust, politically motivated statute.
The prevailing belief among Second Amendment defenders is that the state is engaged in a vast overreach that should be ditched as unconstitutional.
As SAF executive director Adam Kraut declared, courts have long confirmed that deprivation of a clear constitutional right “constitutes irreparable injury.” This bar is sufficiently met by the facts of the case, which demonstrate that the Washington ban infringes on the Second Amendment.
Kraut emphasized that granting the injunction will not harm the state’s interests because it keeps the status quo in effect. Washington’s law-abiding citizens have had the right to own these common firearms “right up to the moment Gov. Inslee signed the legislation.”
He concluded that politics should not supersede the free exercise of constitutional rights.
Americans own an estimated 24 million semiautomatic rifles, making it the most popular type in the nation. Tens of thousands of those, if not more, are law-abiding Washington residents. Those who currently own these “assault weapons” are allowed to keep them under the new law.
A quick reference of the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report over the past several years proves the fallacy of the argument that blanket bans on semiautomatic rifles are in the public interest. Except for 2016, the number of people killed by these weapons in Washington each year was fewer than 10. Eleven people were killed that year.
The state clearly erred in enacting the new law. The landmark Bruen case established that new firearms regulations must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
As Washington has previously not infringed on the right to own these weapons, and many of its residents currently do, HB 1240 is clearly in opposition to historical tradition. It is now up to the courts to recognize and correct this legal error, and in the process restore constitutional rights to the state’s law-abiding citizens.
