483 F.Supp.3d 985
W.D. Wash.2020Background
- Washington voters adopted Initiative 1639 (2018) imposing three main rules for semiautomatic assault rifles (SARs): minimum purchase age 21, enhanced (local) background checks, and prohibition on in-person sales to nonresidents.
- Age Provision: aligns SAR purchase/possession rules for 18–20-year-olds with longstanding handgun restrictions; contains multiple exceptions (home, range, hunting, military duty, travel), and still permits purchase of shotguns/non-semiautomatic rifles.
- Background-Check Provision: requires local law enforcement to perform enhanced background checks for SAR purchases (queries state/local databases beyond NICS); enhanced checks cannot practically be run for nonresidents.
- Nonresident Sales Provision: removes SARs from the category of rifles/shotguns sellable in-person to out-of-state buyers; nonresidents may still obtain SARs via FFL-to-FFL transfers.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment challenging (1) the Age Provision under the Second Amendment and (2) the Nonresident Sales Provision under the Dormant Commerce Clause; the court denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted defendants’ cross-motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Age Provision violates the Second Amendment | Plaintiffs: bar on purchasing SARs under 21 infringes right to keep and bear arms | Defendants: age limits are longstanding, mirror handgun rules, contain exceptions, and serve public-safety interests supported by evidence | Court: Age Provision does not burden Second Amendment (step one); even if evaluated, it survives intermediate scrutiny — constitutional |
| Whether Nonresident Sales Provision violates Dormant Commerce Clause | Mitchell: prohibition on in-person sales to nonresidents unlawfully burdens interstate commerce | Defendants: provision is non-discriminatory, not protectionist, and is necessary to ensure enhanced background checks and public safety | Court: Provision is nondiscriminatory; passes Pike balancing because local safety benefits outweigh any incidental burden on interstate commerce |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (interpreting individual right to possess handguns in the home; identifying presumptively lawful regulations)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (confirming Heller principles and that right is not unlimited)
- Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (Second Amendment two-step framework and intermediate scrutiny analysis)
- Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (step-one Fourth Amendment/Second Amendment scope analysis language cited)
- National Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. ATF, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (upholding federal age-based handgun sales restriction; longstanding tradition rationale)
- Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying intermediate scrutiny to firearm regulations)
- Chovan v. United States, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (framework for assessing core Second Amendment rights and burden severity)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (Pike balancing test for nondiscriminatory state laws under Dormant Commerce Clause)
- Tenn. Wine & Spirit Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449 (2019) (Dormant Commerce Clause overview and anti-protectionism principle)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007) (distinguishing discriminatory vs nondiscriminatory state regulations under Dormant Commerce Clause)