Judge denies preliminary injunction against Washington gun ban

A federal judge denies gun rights advocates' request for a preliminary injunction against Washington state's ban on the purchase or sale of "assault weapons." The lawsuit argues that HB 1240 violates the Second Amendment.
A federal judge denies gun rights advocates’ request for a preliminary injunction against Washington state’s ban on the purchase or sale of “assault weapons.” Photo courtesy Zerbor.

The lawsuit argues that HB 1240 violates the Second Amendment

TJ Martinell
The Center Square Washington

A federal judge has denied a request by a coalition of gun rights advocates for a preliminary injunction against a recently enacted Washington state law banning the purchase or sale of firearms deemed “assault weapons.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Western Washington District Court by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation, arguing that HB 1240 violates the Second Amendment. Two other lawsuits have been filed against the law, one at the federal level and another at the state level.

The lawsuit argues that the “assault weapon” ban violates two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Heller and Bruen, regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

However, the federal judge argued in his denial for the preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs “misread” those decisions.

The judge further wrote that the lawsuit is “marked by argument without citations and sources showing that their argument would be supported by admissible evidence, even under the relaxed rules for preliminary injunctions. It is wholly unclear whether all of the weapons (like conversion kits or semiautomatic pistols) regulated by HB 1240 are “in common use” based on the Plaintiffs’ scant submission.”

The judge also opined that “HB 1240’s proponents have shown that unprecedented social concerns have arisen from the proliferation of these weapons. These weapons are exceptionally dangerous,” adding that the plaintiffs seeking to purchase firearms banned under HB 1240 “have other alternative weapons available, particularly for self-defense.”

He added “public opinion is apparently strongly divided between the Plaintiffs and Defendants – between those who wish unfettered access to assault weapons and those who seek to curtail that access for public protection. From the record here, neither position reflects the true public interest nor balances the equities in the favor of the Plaintiffs.

In a statement following the judge’s decision, State Attorney Bob Ferguson wrote that “we remain undefeated against the gun lobby in court. This common-sense gun reform will save lives by restricting access to the preferred weapon of mass shooters.”

This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.


Also read:

Receive comment notifications
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x