That law is identical to the California statute ruled unconstitutional just three days earlier by Federal District Judge Roger Benitez in Duncan v. Bonta.
The Washington case, Brumback v. Ferguson, opposed Senate Bill 5078. This law banned the sale or transfer of gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. It centered on the effort of Michael Brumback to purchase a 30-round magazine from a pair of gun stores.
He was unsuccessful due to the new law, and one of the stores he solicited joined him in suing the state.
Arguments were heard in the case last November, but most gun rights advocates held out little hope that it would be ruled in their favor. Dimke was already known to oppose gun rights, and her first impression was not positive.
“If the court is to declare (SB 5078) unconstitutional, it will not do so lightly. Injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,’” Dimke wrote.
The previous practice of interest balancing, where constitutional liberties are weighed against the “public interest,” is no longer allowed after Bruen. Instead, gun control laws must be proven to align with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation.
The plaintiffs argued this was clearly the case in the Washington magazine ban as there is no history of such regulation. On the other hand, the state asserted that these standard capacity magazines which are popular with the shooting public are in fact unusual and dangerous.
Dimke ruled exactly the way Second Amendment supporters predicted she would. In her decision, she wrote, “At present, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that large capacity magazines fall within the Second Amendment right.”
So, yet again, another contradictory ruling on the right to keep and bear arms. A collision course is set and a showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court lurks in the future.
