Washington’s highest court just upheld a law stripping firearm rights after two DUI convictions in seven years. No violence required, no individual review. The dissent says the quiet part out loud.
On June 11, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McLellan and Holloway v. Brown that the state can categorically disarm anyone convicted of two DUIs within seven years.
Not DUIs involving a gun. Not DUIs that hurt anyone. Two DUIs, period, and under a 2023 state statute you cannot own or possess a firearm in Washington.
How the case got here
Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway both applied for concealed carry permits and got denied over old DUI convictions. They sued, arguing that a blanket ban on a fundamental right — with no history of violence or weapon misuse on their records — violates the Second Amendment.
A Spokane County judge initially let the case move forward, citing the US Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision and ruling that the state should have to show these specific men actually posed a credible threat. That’s the individualized approach: prove this person is dangerous before you disarm him.
The state appealed and won. Its argument was simple: the ban follows criminal convictions, so no individual dangerousness finding is needed. Get convicted twice, lose the right. Automatic.
The majority’s reasoning
Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Steven González worked through the Bruen framework, which asks whether a modern gun law fits America’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Since Bruen doesn’t demand a perfect “historical twin,” the majority stitched together three older traditions: disarming groups legislatures deemed dangerous, restricting gun possession for serious crimes, and founding-era rules against firearm use while intoxicated.
Stack those together, the majority said, and the legislature can treat repeat drunk driving as a statistical predictor of future violence and disarm accordingly.
“When the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has driven under the influence, twice within seven years, our legislature may temporarily disarm them to prevent future violent behavior,” González wrote.
“Temporarily” is doing some work in that sentence. Rights come back only after five consecutive years of “law-abiding behavior” and a successful petition. So the realistic timeline is five-plus years without a legal means of armed self-defense, for an offense that involved no weapon.
Get the next one
Plain advice on guns, gear, and staying ready. One email when we publish. No spam, no selling your address.
The dissent is worth reading in full
Justice G. Helen Whitener, writing for the four dissenters, went straight at the core problem. Self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment, and under federal precedent, disarming someone requires a clear threat of physical violence. A DUI has no intent to harm anyone built into it. It can’t be categorically labeled a crime of violence.
Then this line: “The State is depriving individuals of their Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms before they commit a violent crime on the assumption that one day they might.”
She called the 2023 law an unconstitutional outlier. Four justices agreed with her. One more and this goes the other way.
Why this matters outside Washington
If you don’t live in Washington, here’s the part to sit with: the legal mechanism this ruling blesses — categorical disarmament for non-violent offenses, justified by statistical correlation rather than anything you personally did with a weapon — is not Washington-specific. Legislatures copy what survives court challenges. We watched the same dynamic in the Colorado magazine ban fight.
The list of disqualifying offenses is a policy choice, and policy choices get expanded. Today it’s two DUIs in seven years. The reasoning would work just as well for any offense a legislature can tie to a “statistical risk of future violence,” which is a very stretchy phrase.
The split decision and the strength of the dissent make this a candidate for further review, and it’s exactly the kind of question the US Supreme Court has been circling since Rahimi. The full ruling is posted here, and The Center Square has a solid news writeup.
Bottom line
Washington can now strip gun rights over repeat DUIs, no violence required, and four of nine justices think that’s flatly unconstitutional. Whatever you think of drunk drivers, understand the precedent being set: your right to armed self-defense can hinge on convictions that have nothing to do with guns. If your record has anything on it, know your state’s disqualification list cold before you assume you’re in the clear.
Skip this: the bar argument about whether “they deserve it.” That framing concedes the whole game. The question is never whether the first group on the list is sympathetic. It’s whether the mechanism exists, because lists grow.
