In a recent report, Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News says more than half the country is sounding the alarm: lower courts are “making a mockery” of Heller and Bruen to keep magazine bans alive, and it’s time for the Supreme Court to step in. According to Yanis, 26 states have filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take up Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, a challenge to Washington State’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If the justices grant review, this could become the most consequential Second Amendment case since N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Case: Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington
Yanis explains that the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s magazine ban by ruling that magazines are not “arms” under the Second Amendment – and then added that, even if they were, they aren’t commonly used for self-defense. That two-step move, he argues, reframes the right in a way Bruen expressly forbids. The petition now asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse and to clarify, once and for all, how courts must evaluate bans on core components of modern firearms.
The States’ Brief: Who’s In And What They Argue
Per Yanis, Montana and Idaho led a coalition joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming – plus the Arizona Legislature. Their bottom line, as Yanis summarizes it: magazines are essential components of modern arms; hundreds of millions are lawfully owned; and there is no relevant historical tradition that permits banning them. The states are asking the Court to grant certiorari and reverse Washington’s decision.
How Washington’s High Court Sidestepped Heller And Bruen
According to Yanis, Washington’s justices acknowledged there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of 11+ round magazines in circulation, citing figures that range from 30 million to 159 million. Yet they still concluded the magazines aren’t protected “arms,” or at least aren’t protected because they aren’t routinely deployed during defensive gun uses. Yanis calls that “legal gymnastics,” because Heller and Bruen talk about common possession for lawful purposes, not whether an item is fired in self-defense on a given day.
Are Magazines “Arms”? The Core Dispute
Yanis relays the states’ analogy: a firearm without a magazine is like a car without a gas tank. Sure, one can single-load a round, but that “destroys the firearm’s function” as a repeating arm. The brief, as he describes it, stresses that magazines are to modern firearms what ink and paper are to newspapers – tools without which the protected activity collapses. My view aligns with that framing. If “bearable arms” includes the weapon in a usable configuration, then the parts necessary to make it function as designed ought to share constitutional shelter.
The Common Use Test Isn’t Close
Yanis highlights numbers that, even conservatively, overwhelm the “common use” bar. He cites estimates that 48% of gun owners possess magazines holding more than 10 rounds and that Americans may own hundreds of millions of such magazines – he mentions one estimate as high as 542 million. He also reminds viewers the Supreme Court unanimously held in Caetano v. Massachusetts that stun guns were protected “arms” when roughly 200,000 were in circulation. If 200,000 was “common” for Caetano, then hundreds of millions of standard magazines render Washington’s ban indefensible under the same logic.
Bruen’s History Test And Why The Analogies Fail
Under Bruen, governments must justify modern restrictions by pointing to a relevant, well-established historical analogue. Per Yanis, Washington tried to lean on old laws about “trap guns,” gunpowder storage, and Bowie knives. The amicus states – and frankly, common sense – say those analogies don’t fit: trap guns are not bearable arms at all; gunpowder storage laws were fire-safety rules, not arms bans; and many 19th-century knife laws were post-Founding, inconsistent, and rarely outright possession bans. As Yanis puts it, the analogies “are not even remotely similar” to banning a core component of a common repeating firearm.
What Other Courts Are Doing – And Why It Matters
Yanis surveys a troubling pattern. He notes that courts in Illinois, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and California have upheld similar bans, often by redefining terms or importing new filters like “commonly used for self-defense,” a test not found in Heller or Bruen. He also calls out other circuit rulings: the Fourth Circuit casting modern rifles outside the 2A, the Seventh Circuit analogizing AR-15s to M16s, and the First Circuit downplaying popularity. The broader point, as Yanis sees it, is that without Supreme Court correction, the doctrine will keep drifting toward results-oriented exceptions.
Why SCOTUS Review Is Needed Now
The multistate brief, as reported by Yanis, frames this as a separation-of-powers problem as much as a 2A one. Lower courts are not meant to rewrite Supreme Court tests on the fly. If the justices let magazine bans proliferate through creative rebranding – calling magazines “accessories,” demanding evidence of self-defense “use,” or pretending that one-round single-loading is a meaningful alternative – then the Court’s precedents will exist only on paper. On that, my take is simple: when 26 states line up and say the same thing, that’s a strong signal the Court should resolve the conflict.
What Happens If The Court Takes The Case
If the Court grants certiorari, Yanis suggests we could finally get a direct answer to three questions: (1) Are magazines “arms” under the Second Amendment? (2) Does “common use” mean common ownership by lawful citizens for lawful purposes (as Heller and Caetano imply)? and (3) What counts as a valid historical analogue for restricting components of modern firearms? A clear ruling in favor of protection would likely unwind magazine bans in multiple jurisdictions and reassert Bruen’s history-and-tradition framework with sharper guardrails.
What Happens If The Court Passes – The Patchwork Problem
Yanis warns that if the Court punts, the map stays fractured: lawful ownership on one side of a state line, felony possession on the other. Millions of Americans would continue living under bans that turn standard-issue magazines into contraband. That’s an untenable posture for a fundamental right. In my view, the longer this patchwork persists, the more incentives arise for outcome-based judging, forum shopping, and inconsistent police and prosecutorial practices across the country.
The Practical Stakes For Gun Owners
Yanis’s reporting emphasizes the everyday reality: popular pistols ship with 15- to 17-round magazines, and popular rifles ship with 20- to 30-round magazines. Calling those “large capacity” is rhetorical, not technical. For many owners, new and experienced alike, those magazines are simply standard equipment. Limiting a firearm to 10 rounds can change how it performs in common self-defense scenarios, including situations with multiple attackers or where misses and malfunctions occur under stress. If the right to keep and bear arms means a real-world right to effective self-defense, the Court should say so cleanly.
SCOTUS Should Draw A Bright Line
I agree with Yanis that this case is tailor-made for Supreme Court review. Magazines are integral to the function of modern arms, are plainly in common possession for lawful purposes, and lack any meaningful Founding-era analogue for prohibition. A bright-line rule here would not “constitutionalize accessories”; it would recognize that the Second Amendment protects arms as they are used in the modern world – just as Heller protected handguns despite their modernity and Bruen protected public carry despite centuries of intervening regulations. Draw the line. End the guesswork.
Watching The Docket: What To Look For Next
As Yanis notes, the immediate question is whether the justices grant cert. If they do, expect a flood of additional amicus briefs, with historical scholarship focused on the absence of magazine analogues and with data about ownership and defensive gun uses. If they don’t, watch for emergency applications in other circuits as more bans are litigated. Either way, Yanis says he’ll be tracking developments closely – so if you want blow-by-blow updates, his coverage is a solid way to stay in the loop.
The Bottom Line
Jared Yanis’s report lays out a straightforward proposition: if the Supreme Court meant what it said in Heller, Caetano, and Bruen, magazine bans cannot stand. The Court doesn’t have to invent a new test; it simply has to apply its existing framework and insist lower courts do the same. With 26 states urging review, the stakes couldn’t be clearer. Whether the justices take the case or not, their decision will signal how seriously they intend to police compliance with Bruen – and how much of the Second Amendment survives in hostile jurisdictions.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
