Washingtons State Media Reading Tea Leaves Correctly on State's Assault Weapon Ban

There are a lot of people out there in the media who are kind of delusional when it comes to guns. They report the anti-gun stuff with an incredible level of optimism that doesn't seem based on anything other than the fact that they don't talk to anyone who doesn't work for Everytown, Giffords, Brady, or some similar group.

Recently, in Washington state, their assault weapon ban survived one stage of the legal fight to overturn it.

At least one person in the media seems realistic about how that's likely to go in the long term.

A judge last month once again upheld Washington’s 2023 law banning the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms classified as assault weapons.

But the dispute is likely not over. The gun rights advocacy group suing to overturn the ban says it will appeal. And whether restrictions like Washington’s are constitutional may eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Washington’s law doesn’t prohibit owning assault weapons, just their manufacture, importation, distribution or sale. The term “assault weapon” is defined in the law, including with a list of specific firearm models, such as AR-15s.

..

Lawyers for the state said assault weapons aren’t covered by the state constitution, which states “the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.” 

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller sided with the state last month.

“This is another strong affirmation that our state’s gun violence prevention laws are both constitutional and effective,” Alliance for Gun Responsibility CEO Renée Hopkins said in a statement. “Assault weapons have no place in our communities, and Washington has been clear about that.”

The Silent Majority Foundation says this won’t be the final say on Washington’s law. 

In other words, no matter where things land with the state judicial system, it'll eventually enter the federal system and land before the Supreme Court.

Assuming the Court doesn't take on an assault weapon case before then.

Either way, this isn't the final around in anything for Washington state. Especially since the state's lawyers made an idiotic argument anyway. "These guns that we say are just like the military aren't covered by a law that protects the right of people to have guns they could use to protect the state, which would include some kind of military action if needed."

I mean, that's almost as dumb as the Miller decision back in the day, saying sawed-off shotguns wouldn't be useful in the militia. At least in that case, it was a double-barreled shotgun, which could be argued as less than useful in armed conflict, but the AR-15 and similar rifles? You can't legitimately make any sort of claim, even without full-auto capability.

Regardless, there's no way that "the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" actually means "unless he's got this one kind of gun that gives me the heebie-jeebies."

So yeah, this is going to continue. This isn't going to evaporate no matter what happens at the next stage in the judicial chain. This cannot be allowed to stand because it's ridiculous, and we've had enough ridiculousness over the last five years, if not longer. I mean, we saw Weekend at Bernie's reenacted in the Oval Office. We don't need this crap hanging around in Washington state.

At least the reporter here interpreted the facts correctly enough.

Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.