In a year marked by heated debates over gun rights and public safety, two pivotal legal battles are unfolding in Washington and Minnesota, each centering on the boundaries of firearm regulation in the United States. As gun shop owners and lawmakers alike press their cases, the outcomes could have sweeping implications for how states interpret the Second Amendment and address the proliferation of controversial firearms and accessories.
On August 8, 2025, Gator’s Custom Guns, a Kelso, Washington-based gun shop, filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a review of the Washington state Supreme Court’s May decision upholding a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds. This move comes after a protracted legal struggle that has drawn national attention and underscored the deep divisions between advocates of stricter gun control and those asserting constitutional rights.
The Washington law in question, enacted in 2022, prohibits the import or sale of high-capacity magazines within the state, though it still permits individuals to own them. The legislation was hailed by supporters as a crucial step toward reducing gun violence, especially in light of mass shootings where such magazines have been used to devastating effect. According to the Oregon Capital Chronicle, the law is just one among similar restrictions adopted by over a dozen states, reflecting a growing trend in state-level gun regulation.
Yet, opponents argue that the law infringes upon both the Washington and U.S. constitutions. Walter Wentz, the owner of Gator’s Custom Guns, voiced his hopes for a favorable outcome at the nation’s highest court, stating, “I look forward to exercising our rights. Hopefully, we’ll get some justice out of this.” Wentz’s legal team, now led by Paul Clement and Erin Murphy—who previously represented plaintiffs in the landmark Bruen case challenging New York’s gun law—contends that the state Supreme Court’s decision “deepens an acknowledged division of authority among federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort over whether these ubiquitous instruments are ‘Arms’ that cries out for resolution.”
The crux of the legal debate hinges on whether high-capacity magazines should be considered “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. In its 7-2 ruling, the Washington Supreme Court determined that such magazines are “just a component of a gun that isn’t generally used for self-defense.” Justice Charles Johnson, writing for the majority, explained, “By restricting only magazines of a capacity greater than 10, the statute effectively regulates the maximum capacity of magazines, leaving the weapon fully functional for its intended purpose. Indeed, we can safely say that individuals are still able to exercise the core right to bear arms when they are limited to purchasing magazines with a capacity of 10 or fewer.”
This interpretation, however, is far from settled nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously expanded the scope of the Second Amendment, ruling that it protects firearms that are “in common use” and “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Gator’s attorneys argue that the popularity of high-capacity magazines means they meet these criteria, a point with which two dissenting justices in the Washington case sympathized.
The legal landscape is further complicated by the 2022 Bruen decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that state firearm laws must align with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This has left lower courts grappling with how to reconcile century-old statutes with modern advances like high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons. Notably, the Washington Supreme Court sidestepped the Bruen precedent by ruling that magazines themselves are not “firearms.”
Recent federal court decisions suggest momentum for upholding such bans. This spring, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to California’s similar law, and in June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Rhode Island’s restriction on high-capacity magazines. Still, Gator’s petition insists that only the Supreme Court can resolve the growing patchwork of state and federal rulings. “If this Court does not step in and stop the piecemeal removal of integral firearm components from the scope of the Second Amendment’s plain text, soon neither the piece nor the whole will be left with any constitutional protection at all,” their lawyers wrote.
The case’s journey to the state Supreme Court began after Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Gary Bashor struck down the ban in April 2024, citing the Bruen decision and arguing that the law violated both the Second Amendment and the state constitution’s right to bear arms for self-defense. The state’s attorney general’s office, however, maintains that “these reforms are constitutional, as every Court of Appeals to review similar large capacity magazine reforms has found,” according to spokesperson Mike Faulk.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the state’s legal and political landscape is shifting in response to another high-profile gun case. Earlier in the week of August 8, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that state law does not clearly prohibit the possession of “ghost guns”—firearms sold in parts and assembled by the user, often lacking serial numbers and thus difficult to trace. Justice Paul Thissen, writing for the court, emphasized that “the final decision on whether and how the guns…are regulated rests with the Legislature.”
This ruling prompted State Senator Ron Latz, chair of the Judiciary Committee, to announce plans for new legislation that would explicitly ban ghost guns in Minnesota. “The ball is back in our court. It’s up to us now to redo the statute,” Latz told the Star Tribune. “Our goal is to basically find a way to ban ghost guns.” Acknowledging the political realities of a closely divided legislature, Latz expressed hope for bipartisan support, saying, “I know there are going to be Second Amendment concerns that will be raised. I respect that, and I’m prepared to address those concerns as they come up.”
Legal experts suggest that a state-level ban on ghost guns would likely withstand constitutional scrutiny. Megan Walsh, director of the Gun Violence Prevention Law Clinic at the University of Minnesota Law School, noted that “the state Supreme Court ruling did not address the constitutionality of regulating ghost guns, and a recent Court of Appeals ruling also said that such a ban passes constitutional muster.” The legislative effort is expected to unfold in the next session, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent for other states grappling with the rise of untraceable firearms.
Both Washington and Minnesota exemplify the ongoing tug-of-war between courts, legislatures, and advocacy groups over the future of gun regulation in America. As lawmakers and gun owners await further rulings and legislative action, the nation’s highest court may soon be called upon to clarify how far states can go in restricting firearms and their components—an issue with consequences reaching far beyond state lines.
With legal arguments sharpening and political stakes rising, these cases are primed to shape the next chapter in America’s complex relationship with guns and the law.