27 State AGs Want to Overturn Washington’s Gun Law Because They’re Afraid You’ll Get Ideas

ESSB 5078 Limits High-Capacity Magazines. Red States Have... Thoughts, Maybe Prayers

There’s a case brewing at the U.S. Supreme Court, and if you blink, you might miss what’s really at stake.

Washington State passed a law — ESSB 5078 — banning the sale, distribution, and manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This law doesn’t ban guns. It doesn’t ban ammo. It doesn’t even ban magazines, just high-capacity ones. You can still own 10-round mags, carry multiple, reload, and defend yourself.

The goal? Make mass shootings less deadly. That’s it. The law was passed by Washington’s legislature, signed by the governor, and upheld by Washington’s Supreme Court.

So… what’s the problem?

Well, apparently, 27 Republican-led states think that law, in a state they don’t live in, that doesn’t apply to them, that doesn’t affect their citizens, and that was democratically passed by another state’s government… is unconstitutional.

They’ve filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it.

Because democracy doesn’t defend itself, and neither does your sanity. Subscribe here to keep your eyes open and your sarcasm sharp.

Wait. Why?

Let’s be clear: no one in Arkansas, Montana, or Texas is affected by Washington’s law.

So why are red state AGs inserting themselves?

Here’s the truth. They’re not afraid Washington’s law will fail.

They’re afraid it will succeed.

They’re afraid Washington will prove that you can pass serious gun safety legislation, that you can regulate high-capacity magazines under the Constitution, and that you can reduce the scale of gun violence without banning anyone’s rights.

Because if that idea takes hold? Their people might ask: Why can’t we have that, too?

They Don’t Actually Believe in “States’ Rights” at All

Let’s be real. Red state leaders aren’t defending “states’ rights” in any principled way. They only yell “local control!” when it suits their agenda and become silent or hostile when blue states use that same autonomy for progressive ends.

They weren’t cheering when:

• California raised environmental standards

• Colorado legalized recreational marijuana

• Massachusetts expanded LGBTQ+ protections

• Illinois passed universal background checks

• Oregon decriminalized small drug possession

They hated those moves. But here's the thing: They couldn’t generate the same political clout, outrage machine, or judicial leverage to stop those — not yet.

Gun policy, however? That’s their golden ticket.

• It riles the base.

• It activates the NRA.

• It triggers the “they’re coming for your guns” panic.

• It gives them a clear path to weaponize the courts, especially post-Bruen.

They’re not defending states' rights. They’re just using Washington’s law as a scapegoat to score national political points.

When they say, “states’ rights,” what they really mean is: “Only our kind of state. Only our kind of rights.”

Constitutional Reality Check

Let’s talk about the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

• Washingtonians can still keep and bear arms.

• They just can’t own one specific kind of accessory that enables mass violence.

• And that’s legal. Under the Constitution. Under Bruen, even.

• Courts have long upheld limits on weapon types, features, and accessories.

This isn’t about banning guns. It’s about regulating firepower.

Just like we regulate:

• Fully automatic machine guns

• Explosives

• Flamethrowers

• Short-barreled shotguns

• Nuclear warheads (yeah, you don’t get one of those either)

No one says your rights are being infringed because you can’t buy a rocket launcher at Walmart. So why is a 100-round mag sacred?

This Is Like Saying:

“You can’t order the burger because I am a vegetarian.”

“You can’t dye your hair because my religion says I can’t.”

“You can’t name your kid Josh because my Josh broke my heart in 4th grade.”

It’s not about protecting anyone. It’s about controlling everyone.

This isn’t about Washington or it’s citizens’ rights. It is about the choices those 27 states have made, based on their own values. And hey, it was their right to choose differently, but not to determine what someone else chooses.

They’re afraid of what Washington represents: A working model for sane, constitutional gun laws.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court may or may not take the case. If it does, and sides with the 27 AGs, it could set a precedent that limits every state’s ability to regulate gun safety, not just Washington. And what starts with gun safety WILL extend to other legislation.

That’s the real goal: not protecting rights but blocking the blueprint for future reform.

It’s not legal concern. It’s ideological insecurity.

Let’s stop pretending this is about freedom.

Bottom Line

Washington State made a constitutional, democratic choice. Red states want to take that choice away — not because it affects them, but because it might inspire you.

If that doesn’t infuriate you, it should.

This isn’t about magazines. It’s about the fear that people will start believing change is possible. It is about the idea that someone else might be happy with a choice they themselves refuse to make.

Don’t let the bastards sneak anything past you. Subscribe and get your daily dose of rage and receipts delivered fresh, before the spin doctors can scrub it.

Sources:

• “State v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc.” – Washington Supreme Court

• “27 States Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Review Magazine Capacity Limits” - Guns.com

• “WA State Supreme Court upholds ban on high-capacity magazine sales” - Washington State Standard (via courts.wa.gov)

• “High-capacity gun magazine ban upheld by WA Supreme Court” - KUOW (NPR affiliate)

• “Analysis and Rebuttal: Washington Supreme Court Opinion in State v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc.” - CalGunLawyers

• “In The Supreme Court of the United States — Amicus Brief of 27 States (plus others) in Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc. v. State of Washington” — Supreme Court

• “Attorney General Knudsen asks SCOTUS to strike down unconstitutional firearm magazine ban” — Montana Department of Justice

• “NRA Files Court Brief Urging Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Washington State Magazine Ban” — NRA / NRAILA / NRA Family

• “Coalition of State AGs Files SCOTUS Amicus Backing Challenge to WA Mag Ban” — Ammoland