Three days after Federal District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that California’s magazine ban was unconstitutional in Duncan v. Bonta, a Federal District Judge denied a preliminary injunction against Washington State’s identical ban.
The case, Brumback v. Ferguson, challenged Senate Bill 5078 (ESSB 5078), which banned the sale or transfer of standard compacity magazines holding more than ten rounds. Washington-based gun store Gimme Guns is joining Michael Brumback in the case. Mr. Brumback tried to purchase a 30-round magazine from two-gun stores but was denied the item because of the 2022 law prohibiting the transfer of standard compacity magazines. He would eventually go to Gimme Guns for a final attempt to acquire the magazine. Even though the gun store did have the magazines in stock, the store could not complete the sale without breaking the newly signed law.
In July of 2022, Mr. Brumback teamed up with Gimme Guns. Together, he and the gun shop sued the state in the Eastern District of Washington federal court, attempting to get a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the magazine ban.
A preliminary injunction maintains the status quo while litigation is ongoing for a case. A judge will issue an injunction if they believe that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case and will suffer irreparable harm.
On November 23, 2022, District Court Judge Mary Dimke heard arguments in the case. President Joe Biden appointed her to the bench in 2021. Many gun rights advocates behind the scenes were nervous when the judge was assigned. They believed it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to win because of the judge’s anti-gun stance. For the most part, President Biden-appointed judges have been terrible on gun rights issues. This judge made it clear that the plaintiffs would not have an easy path to victory.
“If the Court is to declare ESSB 5078 unconstitutional, it will not do so lightly. Injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,’” the judge wrote.
The plaintiffs argue that banning magazines goes against the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. Thanks to the landmark Supreme Court decision in the Bruen case, the courts no longer allow the states to use interest balancing in defending gun laws. The defendants argued that standard capacity magazines, which Washington State calls large capacity magazines, are dangerous and unusual and claimed under the Heller decision that the government can ban dangerous and unusual weapons.
The judge remained unconvinced that the Second Amendment covers magazines. Judge Dimke claimed neither side provided evidence that the Second Amendment protects the magazines. The judge reasoned that the burden of proof falls to the plaintiffs.
“At present, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that large capacity magazines fall within the Second Amendment right. The instant decision is primarily the result of Plaintiffs’ insufficient evidentiary showing and should not be read to preclude a contrary finding at a trial on the merits. It is pertinent to note, however, that no party, at this stage, has demonstrated a historical record adequately supporting their respective positions on the question of whether the Second Amendment covers large capacity magazines,” Judge Dimke wrote.
Judge Dimke also took issue with the plaintiffs’ evidence showing that magazines are “in common use today for self-defense.” The judge called the plaintiffs’ evidence “tenuous.” She said she would not consider “internet articles” as evidence, even though most journalism now solely exists online. The judge took the term “in common use” and added “for self-defense.” This wordsmithing isn’t the only “judicial jiu-jitsu” that the judge used. She also claimed that even if the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights are violated, it is not so clearly violated that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.
“Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right is not so clearly infringed during the pendency of this litigation to warrant the ‘extraordinary relief’ of a preliminary injunction,” the judge wrote.
Judge Dimke claimed since the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of the case, she didn’t have to rule on any other factors needed for a preliminary injunction. However, the judge mentioned mass shootings, linked them directly to the magazine size, and claimed the law was in the public interest.
The judge didn’t rule out issuing injunctive relief if the evidence in the future warrants such a ruling. Even though Judge Dimke left the door open for a different decision in the future, the plaintiffs have a monumental task ahead of them.
Federal Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction Against the Washington Magazine Ban by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms and interviewed people of all walks of life. Mr. Crump lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
seems like judge dumbie is jumping through some serious hoops in her denial of the injunction. didn’t duncan v bonta having gone up to scotus, being vacated and remanded back to the 9th circus give judge dumbie clue on the constitutionality of this legislation? the commonality of stun guns being legal with only 200k in citizens possession really speaks of the tens of millions of “standard capacity magazines” out there. the government, nor 2A haters gets to decide what a large capacity magazine is, the magazine the manufacturer sells with the firearm is a standard capacity magazine and mine came… Read more »
I bought an S&W 10mm handgun for my hunting personal defense weapon, and I could only receive it without a mag, here in commie WA. S&W doesn’t make a 10 rd mag for this firearm. When I bought it, there weren’t any after market companies producing them either. There still may not be any. The firearm is useless without a mag. I did what any free American would do to make my firearm serviceable.
Road trip into Idaho to secure the “rest of the gun” there, then smuggled them back into your state of residence?
Or have them shipped to a friend in some other state who will then repackage and forward on to you?
I’ll pick door #2, Monty.
The drive to Idaho is lovely this time of year…
I go seine fishing this time of year.. You wouldn’t believe what I catch in my nets from all those “boating accidents”
Making a list. Checking it twice. Gonna see who’s been naughty or nice. Impeachment hearings are coming to town. The federal judiciary needs to be purged. I challenge my Republican Party friends to get q testosterone shot and start taking these rogue federal judges to task by impeaching them. When judges disregard law and legal precedents they need to find other employment.
If they can’t judge anything on the merits of what is constitutional, then they might seek, but will never find ‘suitable’ employment. They might find work on Seattle streets cleaning up human excrement, but they probably could not do that well enough to keep the job more than a whole shift. Just five more months and we will be celebrating the Ides of March, again.
Freedom is destroyed with a stroke of a pen, and regained only with blood, sweat, tears, and all of one’s resources. The “Justice” System is a fraud.
I will explain what’s going on.
It’s a anti-gun strategy, and the tactics are working. They craft BS laws that go to the courts, and then corrupt judges rule in absurd ways, because they know it will take months or years to go through the courts. They know the inevitable, but they also know how slow the courts are, and how much money it will cost people to fight the commie BS.
You’re absolutely right. As nrringlee says, we need to remove judges who render decisions which ultimately prove to be held unconstitutional. The current impeachment process is too unwieldy to manage that, though. If we were to begin kicking them off the gravy train, though, they’d catch on and start staying in the lines.
She’s a Fטcking Geraldo Rivera…
She believes the constitution is determined by her “feelings” FU cטnt and all your friends in government too.
Time for talk is over.
Let’s get to it.
Judge in California rules the magazine ban unconstitutional. Judge in Washington says, nah, that’s fine. Positive 1 plus negative 1 = 0. Which is right back where we started, square 0. This will have to go to the SCOTUS now to be settled, hopefully for once and for all.
Tyrants need 2 B hun6
Wish I culd have stood up in frint f that “judge”. Washington’s ban would mean I could not carr my own handgun in that state. It was desugned in 1926 by John Moses Browing, mine was built in Belgium in 1964. There are ionly three sizes of magazine ever manufactured for that handgun.. the STANDARD thirteen round, some european military requested fifteen round capacity which was duly provided, and Argentina demanded seventeen round, which was also duly provided. I have ne fifteen, have only SEEN one seventeen round. ALL the oterhs Ive seen are ten round. a later version of… Read more »
Someone needs to send Judge Dim(wit)ke a copy of St. Benitez’s decision.
District Court Judge Mary Dimke is not qualified even to be humanly rational. She may have a chance if she does what God tells her to do:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Constitutional lawyer Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner channel (soap, ballot, jury and bullet boxes) also does a nice job dissecting Dimke’s decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvrH1Ic5kHY
Good analysis detailing her many contradictions and outright foolishness; it furthers the fact that she has a Constitutional Hate for the 2nd. Amendment.
the lower federal courts are a Klown show of Karin’s from the wacko anti constitution left.
At some point these dogs need to be put down.
Time to start 86 them.
That’s:
8 miles out.
6 feet deep.
Judge obviously has no respect for the Supreme Court in United States
You deserve the Tyrants and Tyranny…You Allow. nuff said.
Washington State went to vote by mail years ago. ‘Allowing’ isn’t an option anymore. It became VERY obvious years ago in the Gregiore / Rossi governors race when it took three ‘recounts’ to get Rossi to ‘lose’ by ‘finding’ votes in King County.
When they (democrats) went looking for X number of votes it was okay, but not for Trump in Georgia.
you mean, the boxes of “ballots” they “found” in a post office in Ming Counth mnths after the realelection, and which a bought and paid for “judge” in said county allowed them to be “counted” for Her Tragesty? Meanwhile a similarly bent “judge” DISallowed several hundred ballots delayed in military transport from our military overseas, dclaring tey are “too late” tobe valid, despite the FACT those ballots were filled out, signed dated, overseas, then gathered up and packaged, with date stamps along the ay as they ravelled to Washington tobe counted…. yes? Gregwar’s history as AtG is more than somewhat… Read more »
Stop the nonsense comment like every one in that state wanted or wants this nonsense .The same could happen to your state, you could be one voting cycle away from the same .
He’s a tired old fool. Uses that line everywhere he can, it makes him feel big, like back in the days when he used to get erections. I’m hoping people see what can happen to your community when you go all mail balloting by watching what has happened here. We actually had Republicans embrace the mail in ballot system, I kid you not. It can happen to your state too unless you watch and learn from the collective mistake the voters here made and other places that use mail in ballots. Straight-Shootr mentioned why conservatives bought into the system here… Read more »
He has no effective plan to win; a rabble-rouser attempting to fraction solidarity, to get under the skin of men in an attempt to get them to act out of emotion, so as to charge out into the machinegun fire out in the open holding only a machete so to speak.