On Thursday, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the state’s 2022 ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” is constitutional. As reported by KOMO News, this ban prohibits the sale, manufacturing, and distribution of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The court concluded that these magazines are not “arms” under either the Washington State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution, and therefore do not fall under Second Amendment protections.
The court’s ruling overturned a prior decision by a lower court that had found the ban unconstitutional. In that earlier ruling, Judge Gary Bashor argued that a product protected for possession under the Constitution should logically also be legal to purchase. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed and firmly stated that high-capacity magazines, or LCMs, do not meet the legal definition of “arms.”
Majority Opinion: Magazines Are Not “Arms”
Justice Charles Johnson authored the majority opinion, writing that large-capacity magazines are not “integral components” of a firearm and are not traditionally used for self-defense. He drew a sharp distinction between banning magazines and banning ammunition altogether. In Johnson’s view, banning ammunition would render a firearm useless and violate the right to self-defense. But banning certain types of magazines doesn’t stop people from owning and using firearms.
According to KOMO News, Johnson emphasized that individuals still “may own, possess, operate, repair, and maintain proficiency with firearms” even without LCMs. In other words, he claims the ban is not a barrier to gun ownership or self-defense – a point fiercely contested by gun rights advocates.
Dissenting Voice: Millions Use LCMs for Self-Defense
Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud dissented strongly. She argued that millions of law-abiding citizens use high-capacity magazines for self-defense and are thus part of the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. In her dissent, McCloud wrote, “The Second Amendment protects conduct, bearing arms, not just inanimate objects like firearms or magazines.”
Her opinion reflects a concern shared by many in the gun rights community: that this decision sets a dangerous precedent by narrowing what counts as a protected “arm” and opens the door to further restrictions.
Gun Shop Owner’s Challenge: The Gator’s Custom Guns Case
This case began when Gator’s Custom Guns, a shop in Kelso, Washington, continued selling standard-capacity magazines after the ban took effect. As Copper Jacket TV’s William explained, the store argued that the law lacked historical precedent and did not respect Washingtonians’ right to bear arms. Their case challenged Senate Bill 5078, the law that imposed the ban.
William read directly from the court’s decision on his channel, noting that it closely mirrors the 9th Circuit’s ruling in Duncan v. Bonta out of California. Both decisions argue that magazines holding over ten rounds are not constitutionally protected, even as accessories to guns commonly used for lawful purposes.
Gun Rights Advocates Slam the Decision
William didn’t hold back in his video. He called the ruling a product of an “activist court in an activist state.” He ridiculed the ten-round limit as a completely arbitrary number, joking that it probably came from “some dingleberry in a think tank.” His core argument: if courts can ban magazines because they aren’t “arms,” what’s to stop them from banning barrels, bolts, or anything else they decide isn’t essential?
He also warned viewers that this pattern is playing out in other progressive states, with courts upholding similar bans. According to William, this isn’t just about magazines – it’s about shifting the interpretation of the Second Amendment in ways that diminish individual rights.
Jared Yanis: “Far-Reaching Implications”
Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets echoed these concerns in his breakdown of the ruling. He called it “breaking news” and “not good,” warning that this case could affect gun laws far beyond Washington. Yanis emphasized that the court’s logic, separating magazines from firearms in a legal sense, could be used to justify more bans on gun accessories.
“What’s next?” he asked. “If magazines can be regulated, what about barrels or triggers?” Jared argued that the court is undermining the concept of common use, a key point in Supreme Court decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen. If millions of Americans own and use something for lawful purposes, shouldn’t it be protected?
Court’s Reasoning: Function vs. Accessory
The heart of the court’s argument is that a magazine, no matter its size, is not a firearm. And if it’s not a firearm, it’s not automatically protected. Justice Johnson and his colleagues believe that owning a gun is protected, but owning any and every attachment or component is not. This interpretation sharply limits the Second Amendment’s reach, at least in the court’s view.
But this raises real concerns. If the government can decide what “counts” as essential, they can effectively hollow out the right to bear arms by banning pieces one by one. This kind of reasoning seems detached from how firearms are actually used and maintained by real people.
Legal Gray Zone: Owning vs. Buying
There’s a strange contradiction here, and both Copper Jacket TV and Guns & Gadgets pointed it out. Washington’s law allows residents to keep large-capacity magazines they already own. But it bans the purchase or sale of those same magazines. So people can own them, but not buy new ones or sell the ones they have. This legal tightrope doesn’t make much practical sense.
Judge Bashor’s earlier ruling, which the Supreme Court just overturned, captured this contradiction. “It is logically inconceivable,” he wrote, “that an item constitutionally protected to possess could be prohibited from sale.” Yet that’s exactly the setup Washington now has.
The Arbitrary Number: Why 10?
One of the biggest sticking points in this whole debate is the number itself – 10. Why is 10 rounds the magic limit? Neither the court nor lawmakers seem to have a solid answer. Copper Jacket TV’s William mocked the choice as meaningless, suggesting that if 10 is legal, then 11 becomes dangerously illegal by default. He warned that if the courts let this logic stand, they could keep reducing the number until only single-shot weapons are legal.
This is one of those moments where the law feels more symbolic than sensible. There’s no data-based explanation for why 10 rounds are safe and 11 are too much. Yet that’s the line the law now draws – and the courts are backing it up.
The Slippery Slope Is Real
What really stands out in this case is how quickly courts are redefining what’s protected under the Second Amendment. When accessories like magazines, which are necessary for many modern firearms, are dismissed as non-essential, it opens the door to all sorts of new restrictions.
I don’t think most people realize how many rifles and handguns come standard with magazines over 10 rounds. Calling them “large-capacity” is a misnomer. It’s standard capacity. That’s the norm, not the exception. And banning them changes what kind of gun ownership is even possible.
Why the Supreme Court Needs to Step In
All three sources, KOMO News, Copper Jacket TV, and Guns & Gadgets, pointed to one thing: this issue isn’t going away. In fact, it’s spreading. Jared Yanis stressed that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing cases like Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island and the assault weapons ban case from Illinois. These may be the turning point.
Until the high court rules definitively on magazine bans, lower courts will keep drawing different lines – and gun rights will keep getting chipped away. As William said, “standard capacity is standard.” And unless that gets written into law from the top down, bans like Washington’s will continue to gain ground.
The Bottom Line
This ruling from the Washington Supreme Court marks a major moment in the ongoing battle over the Second Amendment. It’s a clear example of how judges can reshape constitutional rights based on technical interpretations. And while the ruling is limited to Washington for now, its logic could influence courts and lawmakers in other states.
For gun owners, this decision is a wake-up call. The fight over what counts as an “arm” is far from over – and it might end up reshaping the very definition of the right to bear them.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.