Look, I'm all for keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people. But the Washington Supreme Court's decision in McLellan v. Brown crosses a serious line.
On June 11, 2026, five justices upheld House Bill 1562, a 2023 law that permanently strips gun rights from anyone convicted of two DUIs within seven years. Two nonviolent misdemeanors. No harm to anyone. And boom—your Second Amendment rights are gone for life.
That's not justice. That's punishment before any crime against persons has occurred.
Four brave justices saw it correctly. Justice Whitener's dissent cut right to the heart of the matter: the state is disarming citizens "before they commit a violent crime on the assumption that one day they might." A DUI involves no intent to harm anyone. It's not a violent offense.
Here's the historical point that matters: Founding-era laws addressed the danger of mixing alcohol and firearms by temporarily restricting someone *while actively intoxicated*. They didn't permanently strip rights from someone who drank irresponsibly years ago, paid their debt to society, and moved on with their life.
The Bruen and Rahimi framework requires historical tradition to justify gun regulations. The majority's justification—pointing to general "dangerousness" disarmament—is exactly the kind of speculative reasoning our founders rejected.
And get this: the law counts DUIs even if they were plea-downgraded to reckless driving, even if committed as a minor, even if they happened in another state. That's overreach.
Organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Cato Institute are fighting this in court. Good. Someone needs to.
If the government can take your guns away for two DUIs, what's next? Two speeding tickets? Failing to signal a lane change?
This ruling affects your customers in Washington. It's also a test case for how far anti-gunners will push categorical disarmament. We need SCOTUS to step in and draw a clear line: no permanent disarmament for nonviolent conduct.