Washington High Court Strips Gun Rights After Two DUIs
The Washington Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold a state law that permanently revokes firearm ownership rights after a person receives two DUI convictions. The decision marks a significant erosion of Second Amendment protections in the state and triggered a forceful constitutional dissent from the minority justices who questioned whether the blanket ban withstands recent Supreme Court precedent.
Key Details
- The court's 5-4 majority found the two-DUI firearm ban constitutional despite no criminal conviction requirement.
- Dissenting justices explicitly challenged the decision's compatibility with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that reshaped Second Amendment analysis.
- Washington's law applies the ban regardless of whether the DUIs resulted in felony convictions or misdemeanor charges.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This ruling directly affects any Washington gun owner or resident with two DUI convictions on record. The law creates a permanent, irreversible firearm prohibition without requiring a felony conviction—meaning even misdemeanor DUIs count toward the two-strike threshold. Owners face mandatory surrender of existing firearms and loss of concealed carry permits. The decision also signals that Washington courts may uphold other broad categorical restrictions on Second Amendment rights, potentially emboldening similar bans in other blue states. Gun owners in Washington should understand that traffic convictions now carry permanent Second Amendment consequences.
DownRange Analysis
The dissent's invocation of Bruen suggests this law faces serious appellate risk. Bruen requires historical precedent showing the Founders or 19th-century legislatures imposed similar two-offense bans without requiring felony status. Washington's blanket approach—permanent disarmament based on non-criminal DUI convictions—has no clean historical analog. A future federal appeal could reach the U.S. Supreme Court on whether states can strip rights without criminal adjudication. Gun owners challenging this law have viable grounds, but prevailing will require months or years of litigation. The 5-4 split itself indicates the court was fractured, suggesting no settled constitutional principle supports the ban under current federal law.
