ESSB 5078 Upheld: Large-Capacity Magazines Are Not “Arms” Under Article I § 24 or the Second Amendment

Introduction

In State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc., No. 102940-3 (May 8, 2025), the Washington Supreme Court addressed a direct constitutional challenge to Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5078 (ESSB 5078), a 2022 statute banning the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of any firearm magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Gator’s Custom Guns and its owner Walter Wentz asserted that the ban violated the Washington Constitution’s right to bear arms (article I, section 24) and the Second Amendment. The State defended ESSB 5078 and sought reassignment on remand should the statute be upheld. The Court held that large-capacity magazines (LCMs) are not “arms” under either the state or federal constitutional provisions, the right to purchase them is not an ancillary right essential to self-defense, and therefore ESSB 5078 is constitutional. The request for judicial reassignment was denied.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court applied de novo review and held that LCMs are neither “arms” nor integral components of firearms under Article I § 24 or the Second Amendment.
• Under Heller and Bruen, “arms” must themselves constitute weapons capable of self-defense; magazines merely feed ammunition and are not used “to cast at or strike another.”
• Even if magazines were “arms,” LCMs are not “commonly used for self-defense,” nor is the right to purchase them necessary to exercise the core right of possessing firearms.
• ESSB 5078 thus imposes no constitutional violation, and the lower court’s injunction was reversed.
• The State’s motion to reassign the superior court judge on remand was denied because legal errors by the judge alone do not warrant reassignment.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): Defined “arms” as “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those not in existence at the founding,” but limited to weapons themselves.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022): Established the text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges and confirmed self-defense as the central component of the right.
City of Seattle v. Evans, 184 Wn.2d 856 (2015): Interpreted Article I § 24 by analogy to Heller, protecting weapons “designed as weapons traditionally or commonly used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.”
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010): Incorporated the Second Amendment against the states.
Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017), Jackson v. San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014): Recognized ancillary rights (purchase of arms or ammunition) necessary for the core self-defense right.
State v. Jorgenson, 179 Wn.2d 145 (2013): Adopted an intermediate scrutiny balancing test for Article I § 24 (later questioned by commentators and some justices).

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court first asked whether ESSB 5078 regulates “arms”:

Plain-text Analysis. Under Heller, “arms” are instruments used to “cast at or strike another.” LCMs are ammunition-feeding devices, not the weapon itself.
Functional Component. Although magazines enable semiautomatic weapons to fire, LCMs are not required for a firearm to function—they simply increase capacity beyond ten rounds.
Common-Use Test. Even if considered “arms,” LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense and do not enjoy the constitutionally protected ancillary right of purchase, unlike ordinary magazines or ammunition.

Because ESSB 5078 does not regulate “arms” or ancillary rights, it falls outside both the Second Amendment and Article I § 24. The Court therefore reversed the superior court’s summary-judgment injunction.

3. Impact

• This decision reinforces a narrow interpretation of “arms” under both state and federal constitutions, focusing on weapons themselves rather than accessories or attachments.
• It limits ancillary rights to those “necessary” for exercising the core self-defense right—magazines of greater capacity are not deemed necessary.
• Firearms litigants must now show that any challenged item qualifies as an “arm” in the constitutional sense or is indispensable to firearm use.
• Legislatures retain wide latitude to restrict specialized components not essential to bearing or using common firearms for self-defense.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Arms” vs. “Ammunition devices”: Under Heller, “arms” are weapons used directly in self-defense. Magazines merely feed bullets into a gun, so they are not “arms.”
Core right vs. ancillary rights: The core Second Amendment right is keeping and bearing a weapon for self-defense. Ancillary rights (like buying ammunition or a firearm) are protected only if they are essential to exercise that core right.
Common-use doctrine: A weapon must be in “ordinary, lawful use” by the public for self-defense to gain protection. Rare or specialized items fail this test.
Text-and-history test (Bruen): When a regulation burdens protected conduct, the government must show a historical analogue—an early law with a similar “how” (mechanism) and “why” (justification).

Conclusion

State v. Gator’s Custom Guns clarifies that under both Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment, “arms” are the instruments designed for direct use in self-defense. Large-capacity magazines, which simply feed ammunition into firearms, are not constitutionally protected “arms,” nor is the right to acquire them an ancillary right essential to self-defense. ESSB 5078’s ban on magazines over ten rounds therefore does not infringe the protected right to bear arms. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s injunction and denied the State’s request for judicial reassignment.