A Washington state gun shop is challenging a state ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The gun shop is appealing a May 8 ruling by the Washington Supreme Court that upheld the state law, ESSB 5078, which forbids the manufacture, distribution, importation, and sale of firearms magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
After the state Legislature approved the law in April 2023, then-Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, praised it, characterizing it as a public safety measure.
“I’m proud that this year we’ve increased accountability among manufacturers and dealers,” the governor said in a statement at the time. “These business entities play a crucial role in keeping our communities safe from gun violence.”
The U.S. Supreme Court docketed the new petition in Gator’s Custom Guns v. State of Washington on Aug. 8.
The petitioner, Gator’s Custom Guns in Kelso, Washington, has been selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for more than two decades, the petition states.
In July 2023, the Washington attorney general issued a “civil investigative demand” alleging that the shop continued to sell large-capacity magazines after the law came into effect.
The shop claimed that the ban violated both the state and federal constitutions.
A state court agreed with the shop, finding that large-capacity magazines were weapons that are “commonly and lawfully possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” the petition reads.
The Washington Supreme Court reversed that decision in a 7–2 ruling on May 8. Large-capacity magazines are not “arms” under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the court ruled.
“[They are] not weapons—they are attachments to weapons, or accessories,” the ruling reads. “[The magazines] are not ‘arms’ in the constitutional sense because they are designed to be attached to a weapon … [and] are not designed for use as a weapon themselves.”
The state Supreme Court ruling is not consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, according to the petition. Bruen held that firearms restrictions must have a historical analogue and that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public for self-defense.
The petition states that the Bruen decision made it clear that the Second Amendment defines “arms” to include “all bearable ‘instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.’” Despite this finding, the state Supreme Court held that “not all instruments that ‘may plausibly be used for self-defense’” are arms.
The state Supreme Court also held that the right to buy large-capacity magazines “is not among the ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to bear arms in self-defense.”
An ancillary right is a supporting or supplementary right that guarantees a main right.
The state Supreme Court found that there is a “right to purchase arms,” as well as a “right to acquire ammunition.” However, it held that the ability to buy large-capacity magazines “is not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense,” and is therefore not protected.
The court’s ruling suggests that “as long as ‘a semiautomatic firearm is still capable of firing … 1 round at a time … individuals are still able to exercise the core right to bear arms,’” the petition reads.
The gun shop urged the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its appeal to resolve a split among federal courts of appeals and state supreme courts over whether large-capacity magazines are “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling is “patently wrong,” the petition reads.
“Depriving arms of any constitutional protection at the threshold” has the effect of disarming the American people and stripping them “of their inalienable rights,” it states.
The U.S. Supreme Court directed the state to file a response to the petition by Sept. 8.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Aug. 10, 2025, in The Epoch Times. It was updated Aug. 11, 2025.