Victory for WA State Preemption in SAF-NRA Challenge of Edmonds Storage Rule

Awesome.


However, I thought SCOTUS ruled safe storage is unconstitutional, now this may only pertain to rifles but I'm not sure.

I thought SCOTUS ruled safe storage is unconstitutional,

Click to expand...

Yep they did. Court struck down the portion of the 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act that required all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".

My home state of New Mexico is currently considering legislation that would basically mirror the language found in the 1975 Firearms Control Act that was considered unconstitutional....be interesting to see how it all plays out.

A win for Washington gun owners!

I'm guessing the Edmunds law was more restrictive than the state law? We also have a state safe storage law.

807552-DI-Court-Secured-Opinion-Published-2-22-2021-Andrus-Beth-Majority.pdf (saf.org)

I have read the decision. The case was less about 'Safe Storage' and more about preemption. It does not appear the panel considered the merits of the 'Safe Storage'. Actually the decision indicates that the supreme court was sympathetic of the safe storage concept by including the words "regardless of its arguable benefits to...." in the decision.

The part that caught my attention was the lengthy discussion of 'Standing'. I suppose 'Standing' may be different in each state, but I always thought one had to be actually 'damaged' to have standing in a case. As in I have to break the law and be arrested for the crime to have standing. This may well be a 'non-lawyer' impression garnered from who knows where.

The decision clearly identifies "We conclude the Gun Owners have standing to raise their pre-enforcement challenge". I didn't know that pre-enforcement challenge was a real thing.

I believe the trial court allowed the gun owners to have standing on the safe storage part of the law because, after an amended complaint was filed, the gun owners either did or intended to store in conflict with the law. The supreme count then reversed the trial courts finding that the gun owners didn't have standing regarding unauthorized access ordinance, ECC 5.26.030 as "the Gun Owners testified that they have an interest in keeping their firearms unsecured in the presence of unauthorized users, and they will have to deviate from their storage practices to avoid violating both provisions of the ordinance. This evidence suffices under Alim."

This all seems to be contrary to what this non-lawyer has believed all along about standing. I either completely missed the boat on 'standing' (not unlikely) or it can be different in different states.

Now, I have a dumb questions for people who have actually been in a courtroom. Do defendants or Appellants in cases ever get chastised for bringing 'stupid' arguments to the courtroom? The city's arguments seem 'thin' at best. Example:

The City argues that the trial court erred in holding that RCW 9.41.290 preempts its gun storage regulations because (1) RCW 9.41.290 is ambiguous

when RCW9.41.290 states:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components.

The city's argument was that safe storage wasn't mentioned but it seems to me 'fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms' pretty much excludes the words 'ambiguous'. Is it possible that the city was hoping for a sympathetic judge/panel that might just let the 'ambiguous' part fly by?

Non-lawyer, just trying to understand what I can without going to 8 years of college at 60 years old (again!).

I think a lot of the time the legislator will " throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" and sometimes something will slip by scrutiny due to apathy or such. At the same time they get points from their voter base for "doing something" and we as a nation are the ultimate loosers.

"Still, the Everett Herald quoted Edmonds Councilwoman Adrienne Fraley-Monillas offering a familiar emotional argument, “Any time you lose in court it is a disappointment. If this ordinance may have saved a child’s life because a parent locked away a gun it is worth it.”

OMG, she actually said it, "it's for the children".

Sigh. It's Washington state. No matter what, we're still screwed up here. Our governor, AG and both sides of the legislature (all solidly Dem) keep introducing bills to ban "assault rifles" (defined as any semi-auto long gun) and magazines holding over 10 rounds ("high capacity") as well as other proposed legislation to neuter all law enforcement with regard to any type of use of force.

When I moved up here in '94, this state was solidly in the top 5 in the country as far as laws favorable to gun owners and gun rights. We've slipped quickly over the past six years, regrettably.

New Mexico has become the same in many respects.