Look, I'm not gonna defend drunk driving. It's stupid, dangerous, and anyone with half a brain knows better. DUI convictions carry real consequences—fines, jail time, license suspension. Fair enough.
But now Washington state has decided that's not enough punishment. The state Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that getting two DUIs within seven years means you lose your Second Amendment rights. Forever, basically, unless you petition to get them back after five clean years.
Here's what gets me: driving is a *privilege*, but keeping and bearing arms is a *right*. Yet after two misdemeanor DUI convictions, you can get your license back in two years—but your gun rights stay gone for five years minimum. And that petition process? Way harder than dealing with the DMV.
The defendants in this case—Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway—never even used a weapon violently. No threats, no aggression, no criminal history with firearms. Just DUI convictions. And the court says that's enough to strip away a fundamental constitutional right?
The dissenting justices called this a "blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution," and they're right. This is exactly the kind of categorical ban that the Bruen decision was supposed to prevent. You can't just wave away the Second Amendment because of a non-violent misdemeanor.
The really absurd part? If legislators truly believed DUI was so dangerous that it warranted stripping gun rights, they'd make it a felony. They didn't. Because deep down, they know this law is about control, not safety.
This is the kind of slippery slope that keeps me up at night. Today it's DUIs. Tomorrow it'll be whatever else they decide is too risky. If they can do this for a misdemeanor, what's to stop them from expanding the list?
This ruling is wrong. And it needs to be challenged.