Response in Washington v Gators Guns
The Fundamental Right to Bear Arms Is Not a Privilege
Hello SMFers! On August 12, 2024, Silent Majority Foundation filed a Response Brief in our Washington v Gators Custom Guns lawsuit. Before we jump into that update, below is an interview with Vincent Cavaleri, Director of Education for Silent Majority Foundation and our client, Wally Wentz. Vince shares fundamental truths on the intent behind the Second Amendment while catching up with Wally on Gators Guns and why he is standing for our right to bear arms in the face of so much pushback. This podcast is a must see!
Interview with Wally Wentz
Recap Since Our Last Update
As you may recall, on July 12th, 2024, the Washington State Attorney General’s office filed its Opening Brief to the Washington State Supreme Court in the matter regarding ESSB5078. Despite receiving a denial of our Motion to Modify the Commissioner’s Ruling on July 16th - not a surprise - General Counsel, Pete Serrano, noted that “In fact, the Court has clarified its view on foundational issues in this matter, including the impact of the Rahimi and Bruen decisions and the Court’s deference to the legislature in challenges to Bills like ESSB 5078.“ Remember, that the trial court in Cowlitz County already determined that ESSB 5078 is unconstitutional under both the Washington State and U.S. Constitutions.
Response Brief Filed by SMF
“The fundamental right to bear arms is not a privilege that can be continuously winnowed by the state. It is not a second class right. Appellant suggests that Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5078 (“ESSB 5078”) is a “common-sense law,” a position that is belied by the ineffectiveness of its provisions as well as the fact that only a drastic minority of states have enacted similar laws.”
The Attorney General is claiming that so-called “Large Capacity Magazines” are just accessories, not in common use, are dangerous, and are not integral to the proper function of semiautomatic weapons, and are therefore not protected under the Second Amendment. This creative reasoning is what they have hung their hat on to continue to violate your constitutional rights.
Statement of the Case
A: ESSB 5078 impermissibly prohibits commonly used instruments protected by the right to bear arms. Any arbitrary limitation on ammunition capacity is unequivocally an impairment on the right to bear arms. It is unquestionable that limiting the rounds available to the wielder of a firearm impairs that person’s ability to defend themselves - bottom line.
B: Large Capacity Magazines are Commonly Used. A 2018 estimate posits that of the 304.3 million detachable magazines in the possession of United States citizens, over 79 million are rifle magazines with a capacity for 30 or more rounds, another 9.4 million are rifle magazines with a capacity between 11-29 rounds, and an additional 71.2 million are pistol magazines with a capacity for 11 or more rounds. How much more common can you get?
Furthermore, the State attempts to narrowly define “common use” by only incidences of being actively used versus ownership. For example, Appellant’s definition is so narrow that seatbelts are only “used” if someone is restrained by one in a vehicle crash, or a home security system is only “used” if it detects a burglar attempting to break and enter. This absurd result is the reason that “common use” is not constrained to actual incidents in which a firearm is discharged.
C: ESSB 5078 will not prevent mass shootings. Again, the Legislature issued its unconstitutional bill on the conjecture that banning LCM’s will “likely” save lives. This goes back to the simple truth that “criminals love gun control.” The idea that this bill will “likely” save lives is speculation, at best, especially as data does not back this statement. Law-abiding citizens are just that, law abiding; while a person intent on committing a crime will do so whether a law is in place or not. ESSB5078 does nothing to protect the people of Washington state but only serves to empower those intent on criminal behavior.
Attached below is the Brief filed by Attorney Austin Hatcher.
To our supporters: This year has seen much growth for our team, as well as for our case load. Our goal has always been to continue to expand so that we can make an even greater impact in the fight to restore and protect your constitutional rights. As we near our third anniversary on August 16th, we are being challenged by rampant censorship and massive hits to our donor base. SMF has seen a 40% hit to our donations in 2024. Every donation to our Second Amendment Fund allows us to continue to stand in the way of the gun tyrants! Please consider becoming a monthly donor or donating to our second amendment fund below. Thank you, Patriots, and God bless you!
-Team SMF
Would the Rahimi decision not benefit the state here? It seems to me that the founding-era law cited as a historical analogue in that case was, to put it lightly, a bit of a reach, and anti-gun AGs and judges will not hesitate to use Rahimi to claim more leeway to claim that founding-era laws that are tangentially related at best are sufficiently analogous to justify any and all of their bans and restrictions.
Also, is it significant that these anti-gun judges are contradicting each other in their arguments to support magazine bans i.e. some are arguing that magazines are “arms” that simply fail their bad-faith “in common use for self defense” test whereas others are declaring that magazines are not “arms” at all? Is this not a question that SCOTUS needs to resolve?
Very well crafted! If a judge had any “common sense” they would see this as well and the logic is there. The illogical ideals that “Lcms” are dangerous is completely absurd and lack evidence in any reasonable way to have a compelling argument. At the end of the day it should’ve been open and shut.