An Analytical Analysis Of The Unconstitutional Gun Laws In Democrat Ran States

Challenging the Anti-Gun Narrative: A Constitutional and Practical Critique of Gun Control Laws

Introduction

In states like Washington, where Democrat-led legislatures have enacted a flurry of gun control laws—such as the assault weapons ban (HB 1240, 2023), high-capacity magazine ban (SB 5078, 2022), and proposed permit-to-purchase requirement (HB 1163, 2025)—proliferate, igniting debate over their clash with constitutional rights and efficacy in enhancing public safety.

Anti-gun advocates argue these measures are essential to curb gun violence, pointing to mass shootings, suicides, and domestic abuse as justification.

Yet, this narrative falters under scrutiny: these laws may infringe the Second Amendment, impair Washington’s Article I, Section 24, fail to address violence’s root causes, and dismiss armed citizens’ protective role—all while risking liberty itself.

This article challenges the anti-gun narrative with evidence, legal analysis, and practical alternatives, focusing on Washington as a case study while questioning whether the intent behind such expansive restrictions is truly about safety—or something more.

Are the expansive restrictions masking a government control agenda rather than a safety solution?

Constitutional Concerns

Gun laws face a high constitutional bar, especially in Washington.

Washington’s Constitution, Article I, Section 24, declares: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..."

Article I, Section 24 states: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." Broader than the Second Amendment’s "shall not be infringed," "impaired" guards against any diminishment, triggering strict scrutiny: a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. Laws like HB 1240, which bans semi-automatic rifles (e.g., AR-15s, owned by millions for self-defense), and HB 1163, which proposes a permit with training and background checks for all firearm purchases, impair this right.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision (2022) mandates historical tradition, yet no 1791 or 1868 analogues exist for banning entire firearm classes or imposing universal purchase barriers, casting doubt on their constitutionality.

Moreover, the Second Amendment’s militia clause ties gun rights to a citizen’s role in resisting tyranny, a purpose echoed in Washington’s “defense of the state” language—restrictions like these could weaken this check against government overreach, a core constitutional intent.

Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) affirm self-defense, while the Second Amendment’s deeper aim—resisting tyranny—echoes in Washington’s framers’ intent. These laws threaten this dual purpose, exceeding reasonable regulation (e.g., City of Seattle v. Montana, 1996) by broadly burdening law-abiding citizens, not just risks.

Anti-gun advocates argue these are permissible regulations, citing Heller (2008)’s allowance for "longstanding prohibitions." However, banning an entire class of popular firearms or imposing universal permit requirements exceeds the narrow scope of reasonable regulation upheld in Washington precedents (e.g., City of Seattle v. Montana, 1996).

The cumulative effect of Washington’s laws—layering bans, magazine limits, and permits—creates a de facto erosion of the right, impairing its exercise far beyond what courts have historically tolerated. This overreach threatens not just self-defense but the foundational liberty enshrined in both constitutions (Federal & Washington's). Such overreach burdens law-abiding citizens, not just specific threats, suggesting a constitutional violation under Washington’s broader "impair" standard.

Addressing Anti-Gun Reasons for Gun Laws

The anti-gun side justifies these laws by citing mass shootings, suicides, domestic violence, and a general need for public safety. Each reason warrants scrutiny.

1. Mass Shootings
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Laws like HB 1240 and SB 5078 reduce mass shootings, pointing to incidents like Uvalde (2022).
   • Data: Mass shootings account for less than 1% of U.S. gun homicides (e.g., 467 deaths in 2021 vs. 20,958 total, per FBI and Gun Violence Archive). Studies (e.g., Rand Corporation, 2021) show inconclusive evidence that assault weapon bans significantly curb these events, with many involving handguns, not rifles. Defensive Gun Use (DGU) estimates of 500,000 to 3 million annually (NCVS, Kleck studies) include cases like the 2022 Indiana mall shooting, where an armed citizen stopped a mass shooter. DGU far exceeds lives saved over homicides.
   • Legal Analysis: Banning semi-automatic rifles impairs self-defense under Article I, Section 24, as they are "in common use" (Heller). Bruen’s historical test finds no precedent for such bans, weakening their legal footing.
   • Practical Alternative: Enhance armed security in vulnerable areas (e.g., schools, as in Texas post-Uvalde) or allow vetted concealed carry, leveraging DGU without broad restrictions.
     • Here's a video discussing a study that shows civilians carrying a gun stop active shooters better than the police, and stop a large portion of these shootings: Lott: Concealed Carriers Stop active Shootings Better Than Police
   • Intent Question: The emotional focus on rare mass shootings may mask a broader intent to disarm citizens, as HB 1240’s sweeping ban goes beyond targeting specific risks.
     
2. Suicides
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Waiting periods (HB 1143) and secure storage (HB 1152) cut suicides, which dominate Washington’s gun deaths (69% of 935 annually).
   • Data: Japan (14.7 suicides per 100,000) and South Korea (28.6) outpace the U.S. (13.7, WHO 2020) despite near-total gun bans, showing method substitution (e.g., hanging). Studies (e.g., American Journal of Public Health, 2015) find waiting periods have mixed effects, often offset by other means.
   • Legal Analysis: Requiring locked storage or delays impair immediate self-defense access under Article I, Section 24. Heller rejected inoperable firearm mandates, suggesting similar constitutional issues.
   • Practical Alternative: Boost mental health resources (e.g., Washington’s 988 lifeline), addressing the root cause more effectively than gun laws.
   • Intent Question: Overemphasizing suicides to justify universal restrictions (e.g., HB 1152) hints at a goal of reducing gun ownership broadly, not just preventing self-harm.
   • Contradiction: It needs to be addressed that Washington state supports "assisted suicides". Doesn't this contradict any arguments the state would have on suicides as a whole?
3. Domestic Violence
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Red flag laws and background checks prevent domestic violence deaths (1,500 annually, FBI), upheld by Rahimi (2024).
   • Data: Domestic violence homicides are 7% of U.S. gun deaths, mostly with handguns, not rifles banned by HB 1240. Red flag laws show modest impact (e.g., 7.5% reduction in Indiana, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2021), while existing background checks already screen abusers.
   • Legal Analysis: Rahimi supports narrow disarming of abusers, but broad laws like HB 1163’s permit requirement impair all citizens’ rights under Article I, Section 24, lacking historical precedent.
   • Practical Alternative: Enforce restraining orders and improve victim support (e.g., shelters), targeting abusers without blanket restrictions.
   • Intent Question: Extending controls to all owners suggests an intent beyond domestic safety, possibly aiming to limit gun access generally.
4. Accidental Shootings
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Storage laws (HB 1152) and training (HB 1163) reduce accidents (e.g., 486 U.S. deaths, CDC 2020).
   • Data: Accidents are 1.2% of gun deaths; states with high ownership (e.g., Montana) have lower rates than restrictive ones (e.g., New York, CDC). Training’s effect is unproven (JAMA, 2018).
   • Legal Analysis: Mandates impair instant self-defense (Article I, Section 24), echoing Heller’s rejection of inoperability.
   • Practical Alternative: Promote voluntary education (e.g., NRA programs), avoiding mandates. K-12 schools could offer gun safety classes if this is a real concern as a far better solution.
   • Intent Question: Minor risk (1.2% of gun deaths) doesn't justify broad rules, hinting at control over safety.
5. Gun Trafficking
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Dealer rules (HB 2118) and purchase limits (HB 1132) stop trafficking (e.g., 10,000 guns traced to crime, ATF 2020).
   • Data: Most trafficked guns come from theft or straw purchases (ATF), not legal sales HB 2118 targets. Limits ignore black market sources (80% of crime guns, DOJ 2021).
   • Legal Analysis: Burdening legal buyers impairs rights (Article I, Section 24) without historical precedent (Bruen).
   • Practical Alternative: Crack down on theft and illegal markets, not lawful owners.
   • Intent Question: Regulating legal channels while ignoring illicit ones suggests ownership reduction.
6. Youth Violence
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Bans and storage curb youth deaths (e.g., 2,500 under 18, CDC 2020).
   • Data: Most youth deaths are homicides in urban gangs (80%, CDC), not rifle accidents HB 1240 targets. Storage laws show no clear drop (J Pediatrics, 2020).
   • Legal Analysis: Broad bans impair adult rights (Article I, Section 24) without historical basis (Bruen).
   • Practical Alternative: Address gang violence via policing and youth programs.
   • Intent Question: Using youth as a lever for wide laws points to disarmament.
7. Public Safety
   • Anti-Gun Claim: Comprehensive laws reduce gun violence, citing the U.S.’s 12.2 gun deaths per 100,000 (CDC 2020).
   • Data: Murder rates dropped from 9.8 (1991) to 5.0 (2019, FBI) as gun ownership rose by 170 million (ATF). High-gun states like Wyoming (1.5 homicides per 100,000) fare better than restrictive California (5.7, FBI 2020). Gun-free zones (92% of mass shootings, 1998–2018, CPRC) increase vulnerability.
     • However, Washington's murder rate increased from 2.8/100k in 2012 to 5.0/100k in 2022. What changed? In 2012 progressives Inslee & Ferguson got into office and started pushing progressive policies, which have shown to increase crimes, murders, and rapes in the Democrat ran cities they have been pushed in.
   • Legal Analysis: Cumulative restrictions impair self-defense under Article I, Section 24, beyond reasonable regulation, with no historical basis (Bruen).
   • Practical Alternative: Target repeat offenders (most homicides, FBI) and fund community safety programs, preserving citizens’ protective role.
   • Intent Question: The rapid, broad scope of laws (e.g., 2022–2025 in Washington) suggests a disarmament agenda, not just safety.

Here's a video presenting how Blue states are "using" public safety to strip us of our gun rights saying many of the same things I've been saying of how it's all just a strategy to work toward taking away our guns, tax us more and take away more of our freedoms...